Rotate pulleys using gravity.

Cross section of pulley1, pulley2 , pulley3 and pulley4 are as shown in figure. Centres of Pulley 1 and pulley 2 are placed on same horizontal line. Centres of pulley 1 and pulley 2 are fixed. Pulley 1 and pulley 2 can rotate about their centre. Centres of pulley3 and pulley4 are also placed on one horizontal line. Pulley 3 and pulley 4 can also rotate about their centre. Centre of pulley 3 and pulley4 are joined with one stationary plate.Pulley 3 and pulley4 are simply supported on pulley1 and pulley2.Now we apply some load or weight on stationary plate. Finaly this force is applied on pulley 1 and pulley 2 in vertical downward direction because pulley 3 and pulley4 are simply supported on pulley 1 and pulley2. Tengential componants of these force helps to rotate pulley1 , pulley2 , pulley3 and pulley4.

 

It has been too many years

I don't want to be dismissive if I am not understanding what you are attempting here.

If I remember my high-school physics, potential energy can only be converted to kinetic energy by some sort of movement that reduces the potential energy. What I see here is something that adds a couple more friction points and complexity. Have I missed the point?

 

A novel idea deserves a patent.

 

No stevel, you haven't missed the point. The device above does not produce free energy. It is either in static equilibrium, in which case it does nothing, or it is collapsing under its own weight, in which case your statement is correct. Both this and the last pulley/wheel gadjet jigar posted are simple BS.

 

I think the worlds energy crisis has finally found its resolution. I'm going to start construction on my free energy machine tonight, sell some juice back to the electric company, and then get my megayacht.

Thanks for sharing this with the world.

You might have a tough time at the patent office, though. Get a really, really, really good lawyer.


A quick funny story...I was at the Home Depot midsummer, and I guy was asking an employee where he could find the circuit breakers, but the employee was unsure, so I intervened and suggest he try the back wall of the store in the electrical department.

I asked him what he was up to, and he said he was going "off the grid", and already had bought all the batteries, and was going to invert the juice up to 120 and feed his main panel.

"Excellent!" I told him, but I was really curious how he would recharge the batteries...diesel, solar, wind?

"I'm going to plug a battery charger into the inverter to keep them charged...kind of like a continuous loop"

"Good Luck with that, sir." He was so gung-ho, about 40 years old, and needed a lesson badly...but I wasn't going to be the one.

Mike

 

1. Wtf? 2. Bs!

 

Glad we agree on that Sam

 

My old physics lecturer said he gets at least one person a year ringing up the university wanting to discuss their new perpetual motion machine. This is just in New Zealand!

 

There seems to be plenty of BS around, this one included, if we collected all the c**p ideas couldn't we burn them to power the boats? A sort of biomass steam turbine?

Tim B.

 

Gentlemen, if you will notice, Jigar111 has made no mention in this post as to this concept being a perpetual motion machine. Find here a concept by which the force of gravity acts upon pulleys in tandem, as stated.

Jigar111
As I understand it, Due to some undetermined weight applied to the stationary plate as depicted in the drawing. A force acting vertically will transfer energy to pulleys 1,2,3,and 4; Thus the statement that you have made: “Tangential components of these force helps to rotate pulley1, pulley2, pulley3 and pulley4” is true. However, I will make this observation. If your intent is for the stationary plate to remain perpendicular to the force of gravity transferring equal amounts of kinetic energy to pulley 3 and pulley 4, Then pulley 1 and pulley 2 will have to be allowed to move outward. It is not apparent from your drawing that this is possible. Hinges at the lower left, and lower right corners of your box frame supporting Pulleys 1 and 2 might be an option.

This concept incidentally, is a good model of the orbital action of converging waves. If you imagine a boat in the place of the weight, then it becomes apparent that the yacht can experience twice the accelerations in converging waves, as opposed to a yacht in single wave forms of the same magnitude.

 

The angle of attack from pulley 1and 2 against pulley 3 and 4 would vary as the pulley of 1 and 2 were rotating the circumference of pulley 3 and 4. The rotation of pulleys 1 and 2 in the drawing are reversed.The difference in the friction of pulley3 and 4 would be unequall, as would be the friction of pulley 2 and 4. The constant rotation could not be guranteed as the angle of attack decreased to 45 degrees and less.

As the angle of attack from the pulley 1-2 and 3-4 decreased due to the 2Kmg wieght, the friction contact between pulley 1-2 and 3-4 would deminish to an unacceptable level as to not have adequate friction and therfore rotation of pulley 1-2 -3-4 could not be guaranteed at that point.

Further more after the passing of 0 degrees no further movement is possble.

If you had 2 pulleys connected by a slack belt and a wieght put on the belt the 2 pulley would rotate very slightly. But so what?????

 

2kmg weight is not stated (kg/2). Friction is not stated, and therefore can not be assumed. We can assume that the weight is located in the center of the plate that ties pulleys 3 and 4 together because of the kg/2 vector for both pulleys 3 & 4. Duration through "x" degrees is also not stated, but rather a cause and effect statement is made, and it is valid regardless of duration. Even if there is no obvious purpose, it is good to exercise ones understanding of physics.

 

Bingo ... we have a winner.

 

Actually it says on pulley 3 --2 Kmg. Do i care?---I dont have much to do today so I thought I would practice my BS. I dont even know what I wrote now!!
I think ille go look at another thread. Sluuuurp- Oooh thats a good cupa tea. Now then what do I do click on this button here --- yep there we go.

 

This seems to be a physics ID=10T problem or as my old proff used to say an ID10t problem.