A new idea on gravity powered engine to be considered.And it's again Non-Perpetual.

[eccentrically1]

I understand that you aren't getting it.

Multiple Vertical lines of potentials, as you put it, meaning more paths, or longer paths, won't change the situation. It makes it worse, because it becomes more inefficient.

The most efficient engine is one that has the least amount of friction. Longer paths = more friction. Multiple paths = more friction.

[Aman]

Multiple potential lines does not mean longer paths.

Longer path here is the circumferencial extension OR Jig Jag path,compared to a vertical path.

Just as many pixels make a 2-D network plane,similarly,
a many close parallel vertical lines make up a 2-D plane.

You need many potential vertical lines parallel to each other and close packed so as to accommodate different paths(shorter/longer etc.)

For simplicity,it is enough to understand that total Potential energy depends upon all the possible positions of a heavy ball in its downward way
And also to note that larger displacement means more work done and if work needed to displace two different magnitudes of displacements is same,then it's violation of conservation of energy.

And obviously,whereever there is a work done in a machine,
there is a friction,we cannot eliminate friction completely.Although friction is a great problem,it is not a individual problem to my engine concept.It is a problem to be reduced in any machine.If you think that fictional losses should not be present in gravity engines,then it is never possible.

[eccentrically1]

For simplicity,it is enough to understand that total Potential energy depends upon all the possible positions of a heavy ball in its downward way.

No, potential energy is independent of all possible positions. The force is calculated from mass and distance, not the integral of all positions. Friction and air drag are integrated over position.

And also to note that larger displacement means more work done and if work needed to displace two different magnitudes of displacements is same,then it's violation of conservation of energy.

That's because you've failed to include the larger amount of friction in the work done. Violations of physics laws occur when you or I leave important things like that out of our concepts.

[Aman]

I do not agree here.

Friction losses has nothing to do with potential energy Defination.

You cannot displace a larger distance with less energy.Thats not possible.
Basically the concept is possible due to multiple vertical gravity potentials.
The concept will never be possible with a single potential vertical line.

Your statement is like creating more frictional losses in downward automatically so that energy at input = energy gained at output.

Frictional losses can be a big problem but that does not prove the theory as wrong.

Distance dependence:Yes I mentioned about downward path dependancy and not upward path dependency.

[christo4_99]

Just take whatever EC1 says as "nay" and move on . He's only convinced that being clever or wise or smart or inspired will never result in a perpetual motion design . He doesn't even have to try to argue indefinitely ... all of his precepts are already in place ...but actually they are not even his , they are just parroted over and over in places such as this . The net result of anything he can say is " don't even try ".

[eccentrically1]

Yes, I'm wrong, I'm just a parrot, move on.

[christo4_99]

We burden ourselves with doing the impossible . You burden yourself with what ? Don't be insulted by what I said . It wasn't meant that way .
To anyone seriously trying to solve P.M. it is an engineering dilemma and not a matter of flanking physical laws ...possibly just taking advantage rather than suffering from disadvantage .

[Aman]

I have some ideas to convert this flow process into a proper mechanism.
To make semicircular path, I think I should have ॅ and inverted ॅ two sided semicircular cross section paths.(that is turned " c " shapped cross sectional paths)

Now any suggestions on upward motion through electric supply?
Any suggestions on converting downward sliding motion into electricity?

Let us start making a proper mechanism out of the flow process.....
Let structural experts like pathfinder help here.

[christo4_99]

The proper place to augment the movement of a pendulum is at it's height . You can accomplish this with simple impacts . Here impact becomes a compliment to motion rather than impeding it .

[Aman]

so you mean that if I want to Push my heavy ball over upwards,I should use Impact force to push it upward.Thanks for suggestion.

And how to convert sliding movement to electrical energy?
I mean, that conventional electrical generators are not designed to convert sliding motion to electrical energy directly.

Designing this would be a challenging task.The challenge is minimisation of losses and designing such a complex proper mechanism which probably a few may have done.That's it.Other than this,theory is flawless.

[christo4_99]

If you can produce a perpetual movement there are already devices which convert torque or movement to electricity . Just design something that moves ... problem solved !

[Aman]

Here is a very initial incomplete effort at the idea:

http://flic.kr/p/cc7oub

All good ideas look as bad as this initially.Even Mini Cooper idea was drawn poorly on a napkin by the designer.So sorry for rough sketch.