Why this seesaw is working against physics laws

[vikram_gupta11]

If build perfectly then there will be only need of tilting just 30 degree more from 90 degree to decrease force* distance and increase leverage.
There is no flaw in this mechanism.

[sm0ky2]

Do you plan to build it?

[vikram_gupta11]

Dear Sm0ky2 sir,
I want to build it but I think a team work is needed to build it perfectly as I don't have too much sources.
So now guide me and tell me about your thoughts.
Vikram

[sm0ky2]

If the arm and one half on the tube formed two sides of a right-triangle
Then a hypotenuse drawn from the center of rotation to the outer end
Of one side of the tube


Represents your gravitational radius
This new drawn radius represents the gravitational path of travel
For the counterweight, and partial path for the ball when it is opposite the weight


If you position the device so the imaginary hypotenuse is vertical (straight up)
That is the height the weights must be lifted


When the rotating arm is positioned horizontal, and the tube is vertical
A line drawn vertical through the tube represents the center of gravity of the device


When the arm is at 45-degrees, with the counterweight up, ball down
This is the pivot point, where gravity will decide to pull clockwise, or counterclockwise
Because of the location of the weight, in relationship to the center of gravity


In your setup, you have the tube flipped upside down from my above analysis.
So that as the arm approaches the vertical, center of gravity
The ball falls.
When this happens, the new center of gravity becomes a vertical line drawn
directly below the counterweight and ball, at the bottom end of the tube.


And the ball returns to its end of the tube when the counterweight and ball reach
the 45-degree pivot point.


From this analysis, we can now draw another line, 90-degrees from the pivot-point
To the vertical imaginary hypotenuse
Forming a 45/45/90 triangle


A measurement taken vertically from the pivot to the top of the hypotenuse
And again from the bottom of the tube (on the center of gravity line) to the pivot


Now we see,
the weight being lifted is 2x lifted one half the distance,
During half of its' motion
1x weight lifted during the other half.
The ball falls twice, one half distance
(If you see the intentional exclusion here, give a thumbs up to Chas Campbell
     and keep reading)
Adding these together, we have 1x weight lifted 1.5 distance
and 1x weight falling 1 distance


We are still losing 1x weight lifted 0.5 distance


This can be balanced by extending the arm beyond the center of rotation
And placing a counterweight on the opposite end of the arm.


Now the energy of the ball falling twice balances out with no gravitational loss.
Only lost is the small energy required to rotate the device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Suppose the ball in the tube were replaced with a fixed weight, equal to the counterweight
And the rotating arm became a tube with a ball.


Now, when the device reaches the pivot point, the ball will fall down the length of the arm,
Adding to the counterweight we placed on the extension
This imparts rotational force to the arm, bringing it around to the bottom
Where it will remain. However, analysis of this shows that we lift the ball 1/2 diameter (r)
Then it is balanced, and requires little energy to continue rotation to the pivot point.
Our ball falls 1/2 D (or the radial length of the arm from the rotational center)
And we ragain our input.
Only lost is the small energy required to rotate the device.


This is the moment of inertia of the mass of the device.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a complete circle of rotation, both devices, as described above, are balanced.
There is no net energy gain around a complete circle.


By breaking each step of the rotation down into pieces,
We see that the potential and kinetic energy changes drastically during different steps.


If the device is only allowed to move during certain parts of rotation
As shown in your demonstration
The question remains whether or not the changes in potential and kinetic energy
are equal to a non-zero value across the range of restricted rotation.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Back to your original set-up:
(In this analysis the transitional momentum of the ball cancels out)


With the arm horizontal, and tube vertical at the center of gravity line.
Both the ball, and the counterweight are at the bottom of the tube.
(This is below the center of rotation)


The height of "lift" in your set-up, is the vertical distance between this low-stage
And the height of the pivot-point.
This height is 1.5r
The ball falls 2r
And is balanced on the return path (opposite direction)


We see here, that 2x the weight are being lifted 1.5r
But only 1x weight (the ball) is falling.
The missing quantity (1x weigh, height of 0.5r) is regained below the pivot-point
Where 2x weight is falling 1.5 r


Now we have an extra quantity of 1x weight falling 0.5r


In the complete circle analysis, we see the opposite value subtracted on the opposite
quadrant of rotation.
However, we restrict the rotation, so this is not allowed to occur.


We have now a situation, where each oscillation results in a net energy gain of:


[1m x 0.5r x 9.8m/s^2 ] - [friction, moment of inertia, wind resistance, etc.]


This is because for 1/2 r the lifted ball mass is cancelled out by the balancing counterweight.


Up to this quantity of energy could possibly be extracted at the axis of rotation
During the clockwise (down) transition until the arm reaches horizontal, with the tube
vertical on the center of gravity line.


The details are in how we translate this back into oscillating motion.
3x the gained energy could be extracted, the. 2/3 of it put back in?


Congratulations Mr. Gupta
Your device has survived round 1 of my gravitational analysis.


Of course, I do miss obvious factors sometimes, so I could be mistaken about some detail.
But so far, this looks legit.


If anyone reading this thread has some thoughts, input, test suggestions, or comments of any kind,
Please add to my analysis, or make corrections.

[sm0ky2]

We would want to restrict the rotation to 10-degrees left of vertical,
And on the lower end, to the horizontal line. (Tube vertical).
Any more than this will decrease from the gain.
And we probably want to lock it less than completely horizontal.
As suggested by the author.