Non-perpetual movement!

[Epilogis]

Hello all,

Happy to arrive on this forum, I am above all someone curious and who likes to understand and solve problems ... Good handyman, I was interested in the perpetual movement until finally understand that it is unfortunately not possible, thanks in particular to people like you who, unlike me, know what an equation of forces is and have understood and learned the fundamental laws of physics and mechanics.
In short, now that I flattered everyone I will try to avoid getting burned!
The purpose of the mechanism below is not to be permanent.

Image2.jpg (252.75 KIO) Viewed 6656 times

I tell myself that by reversing a motor of the "washing machine" type (it must have a name: "rotor stator", "winding" ...?) One must be able to produce electrical energy (direct or alternating current? no idea). Re-brief. By coupling this motor with a pendulum movement powerful enough to last a "certain" time, we should be able to produce a current during this "certain" time!
If this is the case then how to calculate the duration of this lapse of time as a function of the hung mass and the force required for the motor shaft to turn fast enough to produce energy? I also tell myself that for this to last, a heavy mass (say a ton, eh, we are not close!) Mounted beforehand to a height of 10 m, parallel to the engine, connected to the axis of the engine by a rigid lever arm, must be necessary in view of the friction which allows the engine to be turned "upside down".
I know that such a system is doomed to stop, perhaps faster than I imagine. But suppose it stops only after 7 or 8h (hence the mass of 1000 kg ) nothing prevents me to reboot it by raising the mass to 10 m.
How? There again I do not try to avoid the problem: with a rack, operated by force ... arms, legs, etc ... humanly what. It does not matter. If this time can be relatively short, say two or three minutes, it's even better.

[moinsdewatt]

At max the only energy you will recover is the initial energy used to mount the 1 tons of 10 meters.
least all the inevitable losses.

In fact, it is useless except for energy storage. What STEP hydraulic power plants do very well.
But not with a ton. With a million m3 of water, which makes a million tons.
At the dam of Grand Maison for example (in France).

[Epilogis]

Thanks lessdewatt for your answer (if it does not bother me that I use the tu ...?)

Indeed; that's what I told myself. The problem is the storage of this energy: batteries?
But my question was not "Is my system new ou effective"because it goes without saying that there are losses and a poor return.
As for the fact of having to go up the mass several times a day it is not a big constraint if one must spend only a few minutes in total ... Of course, if it is necessary to mill 3h to reassemble it is less fun!
I just wanted to know: how to calculate the power provided by such a system?
And also if it could work ...? (it's the basis at the same time !)
Basically, with a gear mechanism inverted and coupled to the axis of the motor to rotate it continuously during the oscillation of the mass;
A mass of 1T;
A lever of 10 m (these are the only data I can provide :
Friction forces, shaft torque, power supplied by the engine in NRJ production mode: no idea
How long would the system stay in motion, so would produce energy (decreasing as a function of time and friction I imagine)?
And what order of magnitude would this recovered energy be?

For example, if a PV panel at equal cost (frankly, mounting a system like this must cost a minimum of €!) Produces 20 times more energy (even when it rains) !!!) so it does not matter!

[sicetaitsimple]

As for the fact of having to go up the mass several times a day it is not a big constraint if one must spend only a few minutes in total ... Of course, if it is necessary to mill 3h to reassemble it is less fun!

Hello,
I think you did not understand the answer of minuswatt. He told you that anyway you could not recover more than the energy you had spent muscularly.
A "normal" man (not an Olympic champion) is capable to my knowledge of deploying around 100W on a continuous effort, for say an hour.
You can lift your weight, pedal on a bike with a dynamo and a battery, any other system, but in one hour you will have stored at best 100Wh. How much you will recover, it depends on the performance of your storage, but necessarily less.

It may not be fun at all!

[Ahmed]

It is not necessary to bother to calculate all the parameters.
The rocking motion will rotate the axis only a fraction of a turn at each slow swing, which does not allow to get the operation of a dynamo or any alternator.
The a priori consisting in postulating that to raise a mass of one ton to a sufficient height to present an interest only takes a few minutes "with the force of the arms" is completely unfounded *.
Certainly, this pendulum may oscillate a good time, except that if your goal of producing electricity was achieved (which would not be impossible by changing your schematic diagram), then this movement would be quickly amortized, depending on the energy withdrawn from the system (electricity + losses in heat and friction).

* Since a continuous movement, such as pedaling generates little more than 100 W, it is illusory to want to produce in the same way a storage power intended to spread this "production" over time!

Note: my message crossed with yours, Sicetaitsimple...

[sicetaitsimple]

* Since a continuous movement, such as pedaling generates little more than 100 W, it is illusory to want to produce in the same way a storage power intended to spread this "production" over time!
Note: my message crossed with yours, Sicetaitsimple...

At least here we agree!

[Ahmed]

Maybe not that there?
But, let us agree that we are talking here about a simple and obvious subject that does not lend itself to contestation except, as has already been seen on this subject. forum, with complete neophytes in elementary physics ...

[Remundo]

your system can work, but it's a bit complicated.

And especially the angular amplitude of the pendulum will weaken as electricity is taken, not counting friction losses.

[Epilogis]

Thank you all for your answers.

Indeed, I did not enter exactly the first answer.
Seen like that, it's super clear, and I thought ... the human being was better than a simple incandescent bulb (and even !).

Side mechanism, it is variable to infinity I suppose: rack type clock comtoise, with several masses etc ... rather than a pendulum.
But according to your answers, as much as pedaling directly or buying a wind turbine, it will be less crevant

THANK YOU for your clarifications, it was great of you (especially on a Sunday: repeat the same physical principle again and again to the newcomer!)

[Ahmed]

We are so surrounded by engines (directly or not) that we have difficulty estimating their enormous power compared to our modest individual strengths ... Your misunderstanding is therefore very understandable and it was all the more pleasant to answer you, that you were not in an uncompromising posture.