Increase efficiency of rotating shaft.

I am mechanical engineering student . I described one mechanical
engineering situation that is very useful in any kind of mechanical and
energy consumed industries. It it is not even in any applied mechanics
book. I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my
website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com
Jigar Patel

jigar wrote:
I am mechanical engineering student . I described one mechanical
engineering situation that is very useful in any kind of mechanical and
energy consumed industries. It it is not even in any applied mechanics
book. I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my
website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com
Jigar Patel

This is the stupidest thing i've seen in quite some time.
Case 1 uses the energy of the falling plate to offset
the work being done but ignores energy needed to raise
the plate to begin with.

While it indeed may take less energy to spin the shafts
in the former case, the overall work is a wash.

It's entirely analogous to a pulley with a rope over it with
weights on both ends. If the weights on the ends of the rope
are equal, then yes it takes less work to rotate the pulley
than if all the weight was at one end of the rope, but raising
in one case you've done some work, and the other you've accomplished
nothing.

This comes from a failure to understand the forces involved. Assuming
that it is equilibrium the load from the weighted plate will be
transferred to the pulleys at right angles to the plane of contact. This
plane of contact will be the circumference of the pulley, and any force
at right angles to it will pass through the pulley centres and no moment
(torque) will be generated.

If it is not balanced and in equilibrium, both pulleys will spin briefly
in the same direction when the plate and weights fall noisily between
them to the floor. You will have been much better off just pulling the
thing.

Basically somebody got their calcs wrong and thought they'd found free
energy.

Ron Natalie wrote:
jigar wrote:
I am mechanical engineering student . I described one mechanical
engineering situation that is very useful in any kind of mechanical and
energy consumed industries. It it is not even in any applied mechanics
book. I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my
website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com
Jigar Patel

This is the stupidest thing i've seen in quite some time.
Case 1 uses the energy of the falling plate to offset
the work being done but ignores energy needed to raise
the plate to begin with.

While it indeed may take less energy to spin the shafts
in the former case, the overall work is a wash.

It's entirely analogous to a pulley with a rope over it with
weights on both ends. If the weights on the ends of the rope
are equal, then yes it takes less work to rotate the pulley
than if all the weight was at one end of the rope, but raising
in one case you've done some work, and the other you've accomplished
nothing.

A weight resting on a pully helps spin it? No.

The weight plate will make it harder to spin the pully, because of friction
both at the interface between the weight and the pully, and increased load
on the pully bearing.

A stationary object can't impart an angular acceleration on a spinning
object.

"jigar" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am mechanical engineering student . I described one mechanical
engineering situation that is very useful in any kind of mechanical and
energy consumed industries. It it is not even in any applied mechanics
book. I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my
website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com
Jigar Patel

Well this guy is a foreign engineering student living in India. I really
hope they graduate MANY
full fledged engineers having his incredibly revolutionary viewpoint. I
also hope he rises to manage
a large staff of like minded souls with a huge budget. This will help
balance the global asskicking the
low buck offshore corporations are giving the rest of the world. Let them
focus on low cost highly innovative
products like this one, and let the rest of us focus on accuracy and
quality.
--
Have a great day

Scott


"Canalbuilder" wrote in message
news
This comes from a failure to understand the forces involved. Assuming that
it is equilibrium the load from the weighted plate will be transferred to
the pulleys at right angles to the plane of contact. This plane of contact
will be the circumference of the pulley, and any force at right angles to
it will pass through the pulley centres and no moment (torque) will be
generated.

If it is not balanced and in equilibrium, both pulleys will spin briefly
in the same direction when the plate and weights fall noisily between them
to the floor. You will have been much better off just pulling the thing.

Basically somebody got their calcs wrong and thought they'd found free
energy.

Ron Natalie wrote:
jigar wrote:
I am mechanical engineering student . I described one mechanical
engineering situation that is very useful in any kind of mechanical and
energy consumed industries. It it is not even in any applied mechanics
book. I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my
website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com
Jigar Patel

This is the stupidest thing i've seen in quite some time.
Case 1 uses the energy of the falling plate to offset
the work being done but ignores energy needed to raise
the plate to begin with.

While it indeed may take less energy to spin the shafts
in the former case, the overall work is a wash.

It's entirely analogous to a pulley with a rope over it with
weights on both ends. If the weights on the ends of the rope
are equal, then yes it takes less work to rotate the pulley
than if all the weight was at one end of the rope, but raising
in one case you've done some work, and the other you've accomplished
nothing.

Wow... Lab work so bad that it isn't even wrong. Don Lancaster would be
so proud!

jigar wrote:
I am mechanical engineering student . Plz visit my
website
Jigar Patel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Plz study hearter.

("jigar" wrote)
I hope you will try to understand it and use it. Plz visit my website
http://energyefficiency.zoomshare.com


ZOOM share?


Montblack

Canalbuilder wrote:
This comes from a failure to understand the forces involved. Assuming
that it is equilibrium the load from the weighted plate will be
transferred to the pulleys at right angles to the plane of contact. This
plane of contact will be the circumference of the pulley, and any force
at right angles to it will pass through the pulley centres and no moment
(torque) will be generated.

"Pulleys are designed so that from points a and a` to points b and b`,
radii of pulleys continuously decrease."

The "Case 2" pulleys are like cam lobes, and the plane of contact isn't
perpendicular to the radius. But, as Ron says, Jigar ignores energy
needed to raise the plate.