I have been messing around with this for a while now, and, hopefully i can fortify my new type of gears. in everything in technical applications, the honest goal is to generate more energy than is put in directly, as with cold fusion, but this is engineering. So, how do we get gravity in on it? if we could get gravity in on it, we would be able to generate more force than initially there was, yes? then there is acceleration and momentum - can we build up momentum from acceleration, carrying the mechanism for longer than 'was pushed at the beginning?' An oscillator will carry a charge for about ninety percent of it's starting energy, thereby 'providing 53 for 10;' five hundred and thirty percent the energy put in, yes? this could come about by having an engine that works on an oscillator mechanism, of course. Then, the force known as 'gravity.' this would bring things naturally back to a dead state, but, when added together with the 'oscillator ideal' it could rotate in a circle, where it works like a magazine, putting even more power out!
Maybe there is more we can do to get more energy from less energy? i would stray into polarization, but that would mean using gravity to keep the gears close together, while there are two of them, both charged positive, so as to give even more momentum to the whole gear, but, this now makes me think of making it work in squares - four gears oscillating each other 'to maximize the push of each strike.' This would be where the gears sit at ninety degree angles at north east, north west, south west and south east, striking from a typical cross section - for visuals - from north east or forty five degrees, so as to use the charge and momentum to knock the next gear to the north east. this will start a maximum acceleration as it goes south, as then gravity is on it's side too, yes? this means that the gear should be 'taking energy' from the points between south west to south east, at 270 degrees, of course.
Maybe the best way to get more power out of less energy is to use bigger gears turning smaller gears? if they were the same size, then the exact transfer would be equal, as the whole gear fits together. then the two would have mass on them equal to each other. but, if it was a greater size or mass gear turning a smaller gear, then the excess mass would be focused onto the smaller gear. this might lead to gears breaking if they were too small, but, if it were that a greater gear turned a slightly smaller gear, and each time they got smaller, then the momentum would lead to accelerated mechanics, yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics If it's too complicated, watch all physics related videos on these channels: https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium https://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse Please do so before further posts.
It's a good thing to be thinking about generating net-energy but unless you can discover something no one before you for 300 years or today has discovered, all the knowledge we possess, tells us we cannot get more energy out of a system than what we put in. IMO this is why there should be infinite investment in alternative energies including hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, wave, etc.
No. For an ideal oscillator that is true, but there's no such thing as an ideal oscillator. For a mechanical oscillator, there is friction which reduces the energy each oscillation. For an electrical oscillator, there is impedance which reduces energy for each oscillation. The closest thing we have for a "free ride" is nuclear power.
Yes, i know that, and indeed it is reduced, yet, it brings a little less power each time, yes? this means that there is more ont he next oscillation, where the 'drum beats' at 100%, 90%... but now, it beats at 100%, 190%, 270%...
With all that in mind, what if we were to 'split gears?' this would see the push of a full part onto two parts that equal 'the same space' as the prior gear? this would result in no energy being wasted, yet none created. let me try to explain the working of having bigger gears working onto smaller gears? If a [100] gear relays onto a [90] gear, is some energy lost? this would see the bigger gear turning the smaller gear with more ease, as the surface is reduced, meaning that, well, it is like two branches blowing in the wind, with the bigger branch displacing the smaller one. following from that it is safe to say the bigger gear will displace the smaller gear, yes? this would be where the surface is freed up to compact onto the realizing of it's goals of turning a smaller device with more power, so, more power will be gained. The only problem with this would be that the smaller gears would become too small in the end, and, the amount of force onto them might be too much. this means that we should use two [45] surface area gears from the [100] gear, yes? this would mean that the bigger gear, now much bigger, and the two smaller gears, now much smaller, would carry the charge or momentum onto the next two with smaller area... what would happen? Well, if it was about two smaller leaves in the wind, and you took the bigger leaf, it would easily move through those smaller two, yes? this means, well, using maybe even many smaller gears would result in even more power, of course.
If your machine gets out more energy than was put in it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics and it considered a Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Kind. Perpetual Motion Machines are considered one of science's greatest rarities in that they are impossible under just about all imaginable circumstances. The United States Patent Office has a regulation saying they are the only type of device which they will refuse to patent under any conditions whatsoever, including there being a working model, since so many have appeared to work but have always turned out to be often very clever hoaxes. For your own sake you should not waste your time on researching this except to familiarize yourself as to why it is impossible. The old cliché here for once is very true; this way lies madness.
Spot on. Even if you could produce a machine that loses no energy and could transfer enough energy to keep itself running, there could not be any extra energy to run anything else. Any energy "generated" and bled off to run another device...is energy lost from the machine and eventually the machine would run out of energy and stop.
If we were to observe the pyramids, we would see that having gears in various places would lead to better regulation and increase in power of the actual 'engine.' this would be where there would be places along the gears making the stress on each gear less, and, of course, if it were just one gear, then that gear would bear all the load, yes? With that in mind we could maybe make a lot of smaller gears to regulate the pressure better. but, if we were to include at various points one big gear, would that relieve stress on smaller gears? that should, so, i suggest we mix small with moderate gears to allow for maximum power generation with the best reliability. Of course, mixing angles is sometimes essential for engines. this would be where the horizontal gear would turn the vertical gear, but, there would be some power lost, i am supposing, as the gears would decrease by a slight amount, instead of increasing with momentum, due to the angle requiring extra energy to turn it, because of the loss of contact with the gear - if you were to try to have a bicycle that turned vertically with the spokes, or, a horizontal spoke to turn the wheel, there would be more effort to turn it the latter way, yes?
Does a engine lose energy with more gears? this has always been a question for me of late, as, i believe that through actual turning, the gear will lose energy, and, the longer time the energy is caught up in the gear with it turning at each point, it might be that this 'moment of suppressed energy would lose it? if it were that a constant energy source was provided, then there would be no problem of this happening, but, if the weight of the gears turning was to be observed, having bigger gears would mean that their sheer mass would require that the engine be smaller for more power. this would follow that a motorcycle would go faster than a car because it is lighter, yes? So, if we had smaller engines, there would be less power loss. instead of having one major engine, maybe there should be smaller parts to the engine, say a engine cut into four, with smaller parts, and, having, for example, more pistons, smaller of course, for the operations of the engine.
If you were to observe that an oscillator could generate power to another oscillator - you know the mechanism of those round balls that have balls between them, often on desks? - then you could provide vastly more power than normal.
No you can't. It's the basic laws of thermodynamics. Yes you can use one machine to power another machine. But you can't get more energy out of a system than there is in the system. That one machine...that one oscillator can indeed power another. But only for as long as there is energy to power the first. Eventually the energy levels in the system are lost. Watch these videos. It's just not possible.
No I can't because the laws of thermodynamics says that you can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it. The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible. Perpetual motion as a concept VIOLATES that law. Even assuming that you can get a frictionless and inertia-less system so the device can run itself forever...as soon as you attach another device to it...a device that needs the energy of the perpetual motion machine...you are siphoning off the energy from the perpetual motion machine and will shut it down. This is impossible. Any scientist out there will tell you that. The US Patent Office will automatically reject perpetual motion machines because it is impossible. @#$%ing learn some @#$%ing science...PLEASE!
