One idea has came into my my mind to make another type of gravity engine.
If you take a ball up through straight vertical and let it come downward through semicircle with the centre of circumference of semicircle,being slightly extended as a slightly sharp more outward corner,gravitational work done to let ball slide along the curved path is more than work supplied to lift up ball in upward vertical direction.
We can somehow use this principle to make a real Gravity engine.

And also note that more gravity is directly used in a curved downward path than going against gravity in a upper vertical path,and hence this principle is not a Perpetual Motion Machine concept.
Defination of Perpetaul Moion Machine:
Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

See gravity points on floor line are like arrays and when heavy ball moves over the half semicircle the ball slides over horrizontal axis two times once right to left circumferential centre and then left circumferential centre to right downwards due to gravity.
Then ball is taken upward through vertical straight on right by supplying some energy.
This is how we can make gravity engine to work with heavy balls.

If the semicircle is stretched outwards from circumferential centre,you will be able to recover energy supplied from centre of circumference to downward floor motion and you will convert gravity to usable output from top most ball position to centre of circumference.

For efficiency,it is better if the semicircle is stretched outwards.A proper shape of curve ,similar to triangle with curved corners is necessary.

It is a common sense that for more distance to be covered you need more energy.For less distance to be covered,you need less energy.Vertical distance is straight and needs less energy to be supplied to lift heavy ball.(Remember that ball should be lifted in a straight path and it should not be lifted along a parabolic like curve)
The curve streched semicircular distance is much greater than Vertical straight distance.So more gravitational energy is needed to displace weight over more distance.
This is no way a perpetual motion machine But it converts Gravitational energy into Electrical energy.A Perpectual motion machine is not a energy converter but a new energy creator which is Impossible.

Note:
1)This is a gravity engine idea basic principle but this is not a gravity wheel.Hence,we need to device a system in which ball can be slided over rails/paths as well as we need to devise a system to convert sliding movement of ball into electricity.This is therefore complex.

2)This is just an idea,not an engine structure.

It is not necessary that all gravity engines are a single big gravity wheels without other equipments.

No matter what you do to the downhill side, you are never going to get more energy out of it than you put into it by lifting the ball initially.

Well that's a very big virus misconception with people.
The thought that gravity engines are perpetual Motion Machine is nothing more than a "Virus"

I am not trying to get more energy by any means from a system.
I am somehow trying to use more gravitational energy than energy supplied to lift heavy ball upwards.

No engineer is fool that he makes a device which makes which makes energy from nothing.
The idea described converts Gravitational energy into sliding energy of ball which is converted to electrical energy.

There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

If the persion who related Perpetual Motion Machines with gravity engines/magnetic engines for first time was alive,and if I was a police,I would have jailed him/her on grounds of misleading the people and suppresing real Free energy technologies.

Free energy does not means that it is free or created energy.

What is free energy?

It is the energy already available in nature at no cost to pocket.

It is not a New generated energy.

It is a freely available energy from nature(surroundings) which can be converted into usable electricity or work.

It involves only service maintainace and free energy Device investment cost.

People have horrible unthinkable confussions regarding free energy.

You are one of those people. Please arrest yourself.

Real gravity engines are not Perpetual Motion Machines.

They simply convert Gravitational energy into Electrical energy.They convert energy,they do not generate / create any new energy.

If the persion who related Perpetual Motion Machines with gravity engines/magnetic engines for first time was alive,and if I was a police,I would have jailed him/her on grounds of misleading the people and suppresing real Free energy technologies.

Free energy does not means that it is free or created energy.

What is free energy?

It is the energy already available in nature at no cost to pocket.

It is not a New generated energy.

It is a freely available energy from nature(surroundings) which can be converted into usable electricity or work.

It involves only service maintainace and free energy Device investment cost.

People have horrible unthinkable confussions regarding free energy.

You're an idiot. Ever heard of Newton's 3rd law? Ever action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction. That means that energy it takes to move your ball/whatever against the force of gravity to it's top postion to be dropped will be EQUAL to the amount of energy that you gain from dropping it. In others words the absolute best you can manage is to break even. But you don't have to believe us, go ahead, waste your money and build it and find out for yourself dumbass.

Well that's a very big virus misconception with people.
The thought that gravity engines are perpetual Motion Machine is nothing more than a "Virus"

I am not trying to get more energy by any means from a system.
I am somehow trying to use more gravitational energy than energy supplied to lift heavy ball upwards.

No engineer is fool that he makes a device which makes which makes energy from nothing.
The idea describes converts Gravitational energy into sliding energy of ball which is converted to electrical energy.

There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

100% Bull shit. There is no net energy they are EQUAL.

They simply convert Gravitational energy into Electrical energy.

Sure, you could do that. If you had true gravitational energy (i.e. you had a varying gravity field) you can extract energy. As an example of this, if you shook a box up and down, you can extract energy from that varying acceleration.

However, if you have a fixed gravitational field (i.e. an object in a static gravitational field) you cannot extract any energy from it. Any device that claims to do so is a perpetual motion machine.

On the other hand, if he wanted to power a clock by gravity, you could certainly lift a weight and then as it falls it can power a small mechanism. Or if you could store a lake of water, you can then send it through a turbine downhill and power a city.

Aman.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

Please take the time to answer the question I am about to ask you as succinctly as possible.

Are you talking about the situation where we have a resevoir of balls that are dropped?

Or are you talking about the situation where we re-use the same ball?

To the other participants of this thread, yes, I'm well aware of the implications of both scenarios, there's no need to lecture me on them. Give me a chance to see where this leads, and give Aman the opportunity to answer.

Aman.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.



Thanks Trippy,

To explain the concept,I would like to explain you an another example.
Consider 2 points A and B.
You spend some energy from combustion to let car travel from A to B straight horrizontally.
The Work done is Force * displacement = F*X.

(Now let this be similar to giving electrical energy to lift heavy ball upward vertically straight.)

Now the car is at position B.
Now let it has to travel back to A in a "different zigzag path "rather than "straight path."

Now in doing so,since the path is not straight X displacement BUT the path is Zig zag displacement,
let the car travels say Y zigzag displacement.
Zigzag displacement is greater than straight displacement.
Hence Work done of combustion for travelling from B to A is F*Y.


(Now this is similar to gravitational force acting in vertical plane which causes displacement around zigzag path)

F* Y is greater than F*X.

To explain the concept on vertical plane,I used the Example of a car traveling on a Horrizontal plane.Let us now talk about the idea of a gravity engine:

Now work done by Gravitational energy from B to A along Zigzag path is more than Work done along straight vertical by electrical power input along A to B.

Hence

F*Y(gravitational work from B to A on Zig Zag path)>>>F*X(electrical input work from A to B Vertically)

F*Y - F*X = Net Residue gravitational Energy

Now this Net Residue gravitational energy should be converted into electrical energy by a sliding path energy conversion machenism which is yet to be designed.

Now this is possible because Gravity acts in a array on floor.

That means gravity is not only acting between points A and B vertically,but it is also acting at each and every other point of the zigzag path.

That's the common sense secret of the concept which many do not have here in this thread.

And yes I am not neglecting frictional and other losses in the actual machenism.

The only thing left now is converting this "Flow Process" idea into a proper machenism which I have to do yet .
This is extremly challenging design because I need to convert Slidding Motion into Electrical energy for which I may use two sided Semiconical cross sectional paths/rails and perhaps no body or very less people might have made a two sided conical Rail design.

You're an idiot. Ever heard of Newton's 3rd law? Ever action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction. That means that energy it takes to move your ball/whatever against the force of gravity to it's top postion to be dropped will be EQUAL to the amount of energy that you gain from dropping it. In others words the absolute best you can manage is to break even. But you don't have to believe us, go ahead, waste your money and build it and find out for yourself dumbass.


No I am not at all an idiot.It seems you are an idiot.

Would you consume same amount of energy to drive 80 Kilometres and to drive 160 kilometres?

If you say yes then you are violating Law of conservation of energy and it will only prove you as idiot.

You also didn't noticed that the gravity is not only acting between two points but also acting at each and every point of Zig Zag OR Curvy Path.

You just considered only two points A and B vertical .
What about the points of application of gravity from the floor over each and every point of curvy Zig Zag path during downward motion?

Have you given bribe to gravity to keep quiet at all other points on floor in a array except at point B?

The gravity acting on the Zigzag path is like UDL(Uniformly Distributed Load) which we use in engineering.So this gravity then acts on heavy ball when it is Slidding over this ziggag path.
I thought you all will be intelligent enough to understand this,but it's really a shame that none of you have understood this.


The biggest mistake you are doing is being Conventional (Crude inbox thinking).

There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract this more total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

Moderator Note:
I gave you a chance to answer a basic question to clarify your point.

You avoided what I asked, and simply remade your assertions.

Consequently, thread redirected to a more appropriate subforum.

......well simple and great solutions are present indeed but the problem is world is not taking collaborative action.

Cable power induction and Tesla Model S Technology are such examples which need collaborative efforts.


Do a little analysis of what fraction of the induction field energy can be captured by a pick up coil in car. I think you will find you have a system where >95% of the energy is lost if the road coils are always energized..

Talking about loss of energy.
How about many Gravity powered Chargers powering the cables at many nodes.
I think I have the right tech to invent a Gravity powered charger and yes it is not a PMM please.

However it cannot be used as a onboard engine as a small onboard Engine of this type cannot make sufficient power to run a cart/ car.

......well simple and great solutions are present indeed but the problem is world is not taking collaborative action.

Cable power induction and Tesla Model S Technology are such examples which need collaborative efforts.



Talking about loss of energy.
How about many Gravity powered Chargers powering the cables at many nodes.
I think I have the right tech to invent a Gravity powered charger and yes it is not a PMM please.

However it cannot be used as a onboard engine as a small onboard Engine of this type cannot make sufficient power to run a cart/ car.
IF! You can get next to free electricity in the induction cable THEN I dont have to suggest going nuclear
and it doesnt matter much if we loose a lot of energy as long as batteries get charged while driving!

......well simple and great solutions are present indeed but the problem is world is not taking collaborative action.
Holy Shit!

This thread might get locked if I think loud about that problem.

Thanks sigurdV.

and it doesnt matter much if we loose a lot of energy as long as batteries get charged while driving!

Do you think developing nations have the capacity to bear development costs for cable system and to bear costs of wasting electricity economically.
For that purpose,gravity powered chargers attached to cables is betteR solution.

But then there is an another problem.
Have you seen India,Most of the cities are so overpopulated that you do not get a decent space to even stand at a place for 5 minutes.
Then how can I provide space for accommodating Gravity powered Chargers.

This thought came to my mind just now.The problem of space is also big!

Thanks sigurdV.


Do you think developing nations have the capacity to bear development costs for cable system and to bear costs of wasting electricity economically.
For that purpose,graity powered chargers attached to cables is betteR solution.

But then there is an another problem.
Have you seen India,Most of the cities are so overpopulated that you do not get a descent space to even stand at a place for 5 minutes.
Then how can I provide space for accommodating Gravity powered Chargers.

This thought came to my mind just now.The problem of space is also big!
Induction efficiency will be improved if experts work on the problem, and at first only heavily trafficked roads will get cabled.
(I suppose that means cities.)
If electric vehicles (yes im including two wheelers) dont need lots of heavy batteries and engines then they can be made smaller on the outside and larger on the inside and will consume less energy. Adding to this that theres no need of using valuable space for complicated and expensive infra systems to change and charge batteries, then the attractive idea of getting rid of CO2 smog might be within economic reach for most developing large cities.

So you mean that as the size of Cars decrease,you get more space to accommodate Gravity powered generators powering the induction cables.Ok done!Good observation!

But the no. of low quality cars being sold in India per day is like a Avalanche.
Traffic is becoming uncontrollable and new bridges are also not enough!Where is the space!We want better solutions,atleast for overpopulated countries like India and China.

I think improving induction efficiency for direct electric supply from the base Massive Generation plant is the best solution,but that's very very challenging Research work although not impossible.Electrical engineers and other related people have been working on this problem since the power generation and grid transferring systems were introduced,but they haven't got a Avalanche success.

So you mean that as the size of Cars decrease,you get more space to accommodate Gravity powered generators powering the induction cables.Ok done!Good observation!

But the no. of low quality cars being sold in India per day is like a Avalanche.
Traffic is becoming uncontrollable and new bridges are also not enough!Where is the space!We want better solutions,atleast for overpopulated countries like India and China.

I think improving induction efficiency for direct electric supply from the base Massive Generation plant is the best solution,but that's very very challenging Research work although not impossible.Electrical engineers and other related people have been working on this problem since the power generation and grid transferring systems were introduced,but they haven't got a Avalanche success.

I usually dwell on the deepest and most impossible problems like the origin and meaning of life... my idea of going towards more practical and immediate matters is to enquire into the end condition of our universe... Starting on Earth I immediately think of expansion of production and living facilities and I reach out into the solar system noticing that the economical and civililized way to the next solar system is harvesting and using solar power in the way Freeman Dyson suggested. Building a sphere around our sun collecting its output in a single ray towards next solar system theres really no need of having anything else in our original system left behind so I suggest we reduce all debrise (yes I include planets) to molecules travelling with us in the ray: At next solar system we repeat the process to produce a stronger ray. Cities in a Dyson Ray can accelerate towards the speed of light since there (probably) will not be much friction in the ray,making intergalactic travel possible: Time passes very slowly for Dyson Cities. Eventually all there is are rays and cities and this will affect the fabric of space in some ways and ...
Eh...Im off topic? Sorry! Ill return to Earth immedeately: BRB!

Even though your comments fly a bit offtopic,your comments have lot of usable Meanings to it.

We need to really develop more efficient cable induction systems even if it's challenging.
I am enforcing my full effort to make my gravity power chargers as compact as possible for future sustainability.
What I have learnt from this forum is try to bring out new innovative ideas and then make extremly heavy effort to remove the difficulties in ideas.

Nothing is achieved without hard work.
The forum due to your contribution has also provided intelligent Forum members ideas for future sustainable Electric transportation.

Thanks!

Page 138 and 139 seems to be one of the best meaningful information content of this thread til now!
Ha Ha Ha!

SigurdV,you didn't replied to my reply on my concept of Gravity power on page 2 of the thread on Artificial photosynthesis!,of coarse through message OR comment on blog on Bessler Wheels Forum website.

What time is it? I look at my watch...Damn its stopped! Time to change battery.
And i must transport myself somewhere in order to do that.
These days there are batteries everywhere and you forget to charge or change them...
Why dont we include ALL batteries in the induction theme?

Where was I when my thinking was interrupted? (Lol!) I was wondering why people travel!

SigurdV,you didn't replied to my reply on my concept of Gravity power on page 2 of the thread on Artificial photosynthesis!,of coarse through message OR comment on blog on Bessler Wheels Forum website.

Is this what you refere to?If not please repeat the question in here:Travelling should be minimized ;)

"To understand better,you may neglect all other comments accept all of my comments in the thread you are referring to.
Other all comments will confuse you.
Also note that I have 2 different ideas of Gravity engine for which I have 2 different threads on two different sections in forum.

Or the best option,
I have mentioned all my research in well explainable manner on my blog:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog.php?w=7"
How far has your work progressed? Is a small prototype to demonstrate the principle far away?

Theories has been known to be slightly incorrect before, and I applaud your testing of the theory that the work done by a falling object is equivalent to the work done in moving it back irrespectively of HOW the object travels and WHAT effects it causes on its surroundings while it travels!
((((Perhaps in the fall it might clear the way from obstructions making it easier to put it back))))
Good scientific thinking! Dont accept theory on faith... Test it!

SidardV,
One of the concept is proved through experimental setup.
Small Prototype is being made.

Other concept on which you had doubts still needs to be converted into a proper mechanism.

Since the concepts are based on the regular laws of physics or taken from nature,there is 100% gaurantee that the concept will work except for probable possible problematic frictional and entropy losses.
The two concepts do not create any new physics,they only convert Gravitational Energy into Electrical energy and a energy conversion process is not against laws of thermodynamics or laws of energy conservation.
That is why I called them "Non- Perpetual".

As you know Non-Intelluctual people people stupidly relate/consider Gravity engines to PMM.How stupid this assumed relation sounds which do not have any proof or logic.

There are many jokers in society who are trying to make PMM (Perpetual motion machine) and misleading people,which are creating problems to real Scientists.

SidardV,
One of the concept is proved through experimental setup.
Small Prototype is being made. ...Made by whom?

I would point out that many coils in the hill the ball (magnatized I assume) rolls down costs a lot of money. They only get a tiny fraction of the energy gravity gives the ball - I.e. it will roll down the hill with almost exactly the same acceleration as if the coils were not there. Thus most (99%?) of the energy invested to lifting the ball to the top of the hill will be converted into kinetic energy of the rolling ball, not electric energy in the coils.

The reason ALL electrical generators are circular in form, not linear, is that they can operate continuously, not briefly and then wait for the ball to be taken back to the top of the hill.

Economically both the intermittent use of much larger number of coils linearly deployed down a long hill vs a dozen or so in continuous use in conventional circular generator PLUS the extremely low conversion of the gravitational energy release (probably <1%) as it almost all goes into KE of the rolling ball makes anyone seriously suggesting this "generator" either extremely ignorant OR insane.

Which are you (if not both)?

BillyT,my question is not why generators are only rotary?
They are not made for sliding motion, as per my requirnments because no machine or extremly few machines demanded that before.

Secondly,
You might have pointed right,if friction and low genertor efficiency is considered:but that has to be seen though practical testing.This is the concept which isn't mechanismisically tested.Even if most energy might be only used as sliding motion,it would still show that it is possible to extract more gravitational energy and convert to a energy needed for motion.

However my another concept described on "Alternative Theories" is been verified as correct because it's noticeable in daily nature activities,as well as verified through very simple experimental setup.Actually it was not needed to check it experimentally because of its obviousness,however I need to reduce back EMF and frictional losses.For any machine the most problematic thing is entropy frictional losses and Back EMF losses which needs to be reduced.

Made by whom?

I would point out that many coils in the hill the ball (magnatized I assume) rolls down costs a lot of money. They only get a tiny fraction of the energy gravity gives the ball - I.e. it will roll down the hill with almost exactly the same acceleration as if the coils were not there. Thus most (99%?) of the energy invested to lifting the ball to the top of the hill will be converted into kinetic energy of the rolling ball, not electric energy in the coils.

The reason ALL electrical generators are circular in form, not linear, is that they can operate continuously, not briefly and then wait for the ball to be taken back to the top of the hill.

Economically both the intermittent use of much larger number of coils linearly deployed down a long hill vs a dozen or so in continuous use in conventional circular generator PLUS the extremely low conversion of the gravitational energy release (probably <1%) as it almost all goes into KE of the rolling ball makes anyone seriously suggesting this "generator" either extremely ignorant OR insane.

Which are you (if not both)?
First:Its not impossible to generate power from gravity! There is power generated from tidal waves...
this power originates from the gravity of the Moon rotating around the earth.

Second: Its the principle Im interested in, the prize of the apparatus involved is irrelevant .

Third: Is the work done to lift the ball EXACTLY equivalent to the work done by the ball on the way down
IRRESPECTIVELY of how long the way down is and what happens on the way?

I have seen no answer to this question. Suppose the ball travels around the earth a couple of times before its back down on the ground?
Doesnt it produce work by moving molecules out of the way,and how much electricity is generated in a very thick coil?
The ball might also produce power by pressing and releasing buttons along the way...

Since the concepts are based on the regular laws of physics or taken from nature,there is 100% gaurantee that the concept will work . . .

Then the person proposing such a scheme does not understand the "regular laws of physics."


The two concepts do not create any new physics,they only convert Gravitational Energy into Electrical energy and a energy conversion process is not against laws of thermodynamics or laws of energy conservation.
That is why I called them "Non- Perpetual".

If it perpetually creates energy from a static gravitational (or magnetic, or electrical) field then it is a perpetual motion machine.

Is the work done to lift the ball EXACTLY equivalent to the work done by the ball on the way down IRRESPECTIVELY of how long the way down is and what happens on the way?

I think,I had discussed this clearly in both my threads on both of my concepts on this forum.You may not have seen or understood it properly.
However,you may see my blog articles:
1)http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

And

2)http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

which summarises all points properly.

"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

Then the person proposing such a scheme does not understand the "regular laws of physics."



If it perpetually creates energy from a static gravitational (or magnetic, or electrical) field then it is a perpetual motion machine.

Yours this comment shows the Typical thinking of a Persion whose concept of physics is really bad and cannot think out of box and who want to close jobs of scientists.Sorry I did not wanted to hurt anyone but this is what I feel.

I mentioned many times everywhere that real Gravity engines are not Perpetual Motion Machines.
But what to do?
This virus called "Perpetual" has killed people's ability to think properly.
Real Gravity engines should convert Gravitational energy into electrical energy.
They do not generate any new energy.

They should work on basic rule that

"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

I started working on Gravity engines 5 years back when I was not aware of this word called "Perpetual",but I was not foolish enough to not know the Law of conservation of energy,and was well aware of the challenge of converting this static energy into electricity.

No textbook says that Gravity engines are Perpetual.It is your's and people's own new law which is not realistic.

In gravity engines,gravitational energy should converts to electrical energy just like tidal wave energy due to moon's gravity is converted to electrical energy.Thats it.

A perpetual motion machine either makes new energy OR gives more output than input,which is impossible to achieve.
If a engine converts Gravitational energy into electrical energy or any other form of energy,can it be called Perpetual Motion Machine?
First read the Defination of Perpetual Motion Machines on wikipedia's website and then make such comments.

When you make such NONSENSICAL claims of Gravity engines as Perpetual Motion Machine,are you telling gravitational energy to keep quiet and to not to be converted into electrical energy or any other form of energy?

If this is the case then tidal energy caused due to gravitaional energy conversion into tidal motion should only be science fiction.

Tidal power is extracted from the Earth's oceanic tides; tidal forces are periodic variations in gravitational attraction exerted by celestial bodies.Would you then call a Tidal gravitational energy conversion machine as Perpetual Motion Machine?

That is why I say that world is becoming more mad mad mad,suppresing real inventions by creating their own rules that violate laws of physics.

The theory behind Gravity engines is interesting and maybe it should be continued in:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113803
Where Amans concept is presented. Or perhaps: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113547&page=6 A thread I just noticed.

Tidal power depends on gravity, yes , but also on movement. If moon and earth stopped moving around the sun I think generating tidal power could go on...And the gravitational fields should be static. But if earth stopped rotating then tidal waves stop moving. But not because earths gravity field stopped rotating, if it ever did, but because the water moon attracts no longer is transported anywhere by rotation.

Movement,then, is necessary for gravity engines, is the movement of the ball sufficient?

Yours this comment shows the Typical thinking of a Persion whose concept of physics is really bad and cannot think out of box and who want to close jobs of scientists.

"Want to close jobs of scientists?" What does that even mean?


Real Gravity engines should convert Gravitational energy into electrical energy.

Like I said before, if gravity engines convert STATIC gravitational fields to electrical (or any other form of ) ENERGY then they are perpetual motion machines (or over-unity machines if you prefer.)


In gravity engines,gravitational energy should converts to electrical energy just like tidal wave energy due to moon's gravity is converted to electrical energy.Thats it.

That's fine. If you are converting DYNAMIC changes in gravity fields to energy then you are changing one form of energy into another. Work is being done on a system, and some of that work is extracted and turned into another form of work. In the tidal power example, the moon lifts and drops the oceans, and power can be extracted from that motion. Energy is removed from the moon, and its kinetic energy is converted to a different form of energy; hence it slows down.

However, any system that uses complex collections of wheels spinning/balls dropping without the influence of a measurable external change in gravitational potentials is a perpetual motion machine. There are a great many examples. None have worked.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.
No you don't, because it takes work (the application of energy) to lift the ball in the first place. The work done in lifting the ball is exactly the same as the GPE that gets converted into KE in the first place.

Thanks sigurdV for the appreciation.The thread you just saw is my another concept of gravity engine.


Movement,then, is necessary for gravity engines, is the movement of the ball sufficient?
I didn't understood what you want to ask?The movement of the balls is offcoarse guided by earth's gravity in the analogous example of principle of working of my engine.

No you don't, because it takes work (the application of energy) to lift the ball in the first place. The work done in lifting the ball is exactly the same as the GPE that gets converted into KE in the first place.

Not always!!!
It depends on the approach you are using.

I will proove you wrong.

Let us discuss my that another idea on gravity engine.

For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,

Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a continuous circular cyclic path.

I have developed a mechanism to achieve this cyclic process but it's a secret until It is published in official gazette.Actual engine will not use powder ok:::this is just an analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's talk of Principle of minimum Potential energy and Creep.

Again I will proove you wrong!

I guess you know what is meant by creep and Body force(self weight).

I guess you know what is stress(resistance to deformation),atomic dislocation and strain.

Note that creep,self weight,stress are not new things which I am proposing,and are foundations of structural engineering.

Refer rough analogous sketch on

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6927929850/

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this.
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)[/url] ]

So my engine does not go against laws of physics.In fact what I have told here about mechanism of Creep due to stress becoming unbearable is the backbone of structural engineering and the first question for an interview could be "how beams fail under self weight load and external weight load."My technology does not bend physics but uses it in a altogether different way.

Defination of analogy:The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves.

Actual engine details will be out once it is published in official Gazzete on International patent office website.it is really a simple concept.

The idea behind the overcommable resistance is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object/ball by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

[I]Note that in the sketch example,water resistance only acts in downward direction and do not act in uoward direction.
--------------------------------
The mechanism of creep depends on temperature and stress created due to weight loading on a structural member(many times,the weight loading is only self weight). The various methods are:

Bulk diffusion (Nabarro-Herring creep)

Climb — here the strain is actually accomplished by climb(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dislocation#Dislocation_climb)

Climb-assisted glide — here the climb is an enabling mechanism, allowing dislocations to get around obstacles

Grain boundary diffusion (Coble creep)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coble_creep)

Thermally activated glide — e.g., via cross-slip

Just a note so that you do not confuse: Phenomeneon similar to Creep and "not creep" occurs in the actual engine.

In the tidal power example, the moon lifts and drops the oceans, and power can be extracted from that motion. Energy is removed from the moon, and its kinetic energy is converted to a different form of energy; hence it slows down.

Never heard that before ...lifting yes, but dropping?

If we could tap the gravity field itself through some contraption... not some large scale movement...then earth should loose mass. So the contraption wouldnt be a perpetum mobile.

Not always!!!
Yes. Always.
w=f.d
f=m.g
d=h
Substituting the second and third equations into the first we get:
w=m.g.h

This is the work done in lifting, and the energy converted to kinetic energy in falling (because the kinetic energy in falling comes from the work done by gravity in accelerating the falling body).


For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,
So now you're changing the mass of the falling object?
Here's the thing.
It doesn't matter, because at some point you had to lift the resevoir of powder and that required the application of energy in the form of work. That can be quantified as well, the work done in lifting resevoir of powder is equal to nX where n is the number of kg's of powder you start out with in your resevoir.

And the idea of using a second unit of powder to lift the first unit of powder..? Why bother with the first unit of powder in the first place? It's not actually doing anything. It takes as much work to lift back up to the top of the cycle as it generates energy in falling.

Absolutely Wrong Trippy,
god will read this:

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a continous circular cyclic path.

I have developed a mechanism to achieve this cyclic process but it's a secret until It is published in official gazette.Actual engine will not use powder ok:::this is just an analogy.

Absolutely Wrong Trippy,
god will read this:

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a continous circular cyclic path.

I have developed a mechanism to achieve this cyclic process but it's a secret until It is published in official gazette.Actual engine will not use powder ok:::this is just an analogy.
So prove it.

Convince us.

Show us the maths, based on a generic engine cycle, that demonstrates that this is a functional reality, rather than over-looked terms in an equation.

Incidentally, editing your post an hour after it was posted, and after it has been replied to in a way that substantially alters its content or meaning is at best poor form.

I will not be going back and re-reading it.
I will not be addressing any new points added subsequent to my reply.

because it takes work (the application of energy) to lift the ball in the first place. The work done in lifting the ball is exactly the same as the GPE that gets converted into KE in the first place.


Not always!!! It depends on the approach you are using.

Yes always. There are no clever mathematical tricks that let you remove potential energy from one side of the cycle and not the other.


I will proove you wrong. Let us discuss my that another idea on gravity engine. For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy. Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X

Yes, sort of. You need twice the energy to lift twice the weight - so the energy consumed PER KG of powder is always the same. That means that you can't do clever tricks to get more energy back later.

However, if you are "pushing" the powder downwards, rather than letting it descend and recovering the energy, you are using energy in both directions - and thus you always lose energy.


I have developed a mechanism to achieve this cyclic process but it's a secret until It is published in official gazette.Actual engine will not use powder ok:::this is just an analogy.

Ah, the old "I have a secret formula that I won't tell you!" angle. Always a fun one.

Moderator: The "Electric cars are a pipe dream" thread was a useful and quite long thread before Aman shah and sigurdV appeared and started filling it with crap. Please clean it up and transfer their nonsense to the cesspool, where it belongs.

... I have the right tech to invent a Gravity powered charger and yes it is not a PMM please. ...True it is not a PPM. It is an "over unity" device and they all violate conservation of energy law so the patent office just immediately throws them in the trash.

PPM is not impossible in principle but over unity devices are. - Super conductive currents flow without friction losses. Electrons orbiting nuclei in ground state, and a completely isolated sun with a single distant planet orbiting it are all examples of PPM.

A thread on this same topic has already been closed. The so called gravity engine in is based on the OP's misunderstanding of basic phyics. Please close it again.

Equations!

If you have read the explanation below the sketch on Flickr correctly and fully,
You will find a balanced energy equation for its analogy described there :

Energy supplied to lift Red ball through commutator controlled motor mode at pivot + gravitational energy required to push the resistance away + frictional losses + other entropy losses = supplied energy recovered though generator mode by commutator control at pivot(red coloured in sketch) + electricity converted from overcoming of resistance+ frictional losses + Back EMF losses + other entropy losses.

So you told patents are not given!Yes obviously,if you try to create a machine which violates laws of thermodynamics,who will give you a patent?

My technology is already tested and occurs in nature,the only problem being reducing the frictional losses.

All people are not of same kind,if they have failed because they were illogical in their science fictional work,it doesnot mean that every attempt will fail.
If you are logical,you will never fail.All other attempts failed because the people were stupidly trying to generate New Energy or were trying to make more output than input which is Illogical and funny,laughable.

Converting gravitational energy into another form of energy is also not laws of thermodynamics.
Energy can never be destroyed or created but can be converted from one form to another.
This idea got 1st prंize in few intercollege science fests.


A thread on this same topic has already been closed. The so called gravity engine in is based on the OP's misunderstanding of basic phyics. Please close it again.
Why not close the job of scientists?

Actually you are misunderstanding physics.
I even doubt that you anything about creep,stress,strain,machenism of failure of simply supported beams,etc.

Just a recap of what I mentioned on Flickr:
Hi guys,here is my analogous example of a very heavy weight red ball hanging,to explain a single cycle of my gravity engine working principle.

The splashing water on right side indicates how gravity is used to overcome water resistance,and convert gravitational energy in to splashing of water which is analogous to converted net electrical output of my engine.
The more the weight of ball,the more the resistance overcomed.

Energy is only supplied here to lift the ball up and recovered when ball comes down.It is comprising of half cycle motor and half cycle generator located at red pivot,controlled by a commutator.

Here also two downward processes occur simultaneously:

(1) recovery of supplied energy to lift the red ball through half cycle Generator mode of Motor Cum Generator at red shown Pivot.

(2)The conversion of Gravitational energy in to electrical usable energy due to Overcommable weight obstacle resistance by the gravitational energy acting for more time by slowing the downward process. (Assume that you use water turbine to convert energy consumed in splashing of water into electricity for eliminating confussion).

Note that water resistance is present only on right at downward motion of ball and not on left.

The commutator changes it’s circuit coils orientation so that during upward process you lift ball and during downward process you recover supplied energy .

The idea behind the overcommable resistance is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object/ball by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

That was just an Very similar analogy,actual engine will be actually completely different but will work on same principle.The resistance element will be like elastic like overcommable solid,but not fluid in my original design.

I have discussed only Analogous example(Basic concept) on Flickr only due to initial Patent law compatibility.I would have revealed the whole engine design itself instead of analogy BUT ;;;
(A)"A patent document is published in Official gazette for public Opposition and further legal processing ONLY if the idea is novel AND it is never and not at all published anywhere else."—This is what patent law says.
(B)Not only this,any body can copy the invention and patent it before you if you disclose it without publication in patent office. "

"Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)"

What is strange is “Why nobody else pointed out about such a mechanical resistance before which can be overcomed by gravitational force.”
If you still have confussion open any “mechanics of material “textbooks and study how materials and weight offer resistance.This resistance occurs due to weight of the fluid.This type of resistance can also occur due to solid body weight.

So,what my engine does is tap the energy required to go against the resistance by the gravity.

Balance energy equation for my concept:

Energy supplied to lift Red ball through commutator controlled motor mode at pivot + gravitational energy required to push the resistance away + frictional losses + other entropy losses = supplied energy recovered though generator mode by commutator control at pivot(red coloured in sketch) + electricity converted from overcoming of resistance+ frictional losses + Back EMF losses + other entropy losses.

It’s also right if said theoratically that “energy supplying and recovery process “is just like a or analogous to a catalyst,which is used to let the resistance overcomming process through gravity take place without actually any net change of electrical energy form/format from one form to another form of energy.The energy used to overcome resistance is then converted to electrical energy by a suitable energy conversion system.

Limitation of the example/Analogy discussed here:

The analogy only explains a single complete cycle of the engine in comparison to Continuous repeating cycle of the actual engine.
Water is not used in actual engine due to efficiency problems of water turbine energy conversion processes.Water splashing is turbulent and blades opposite reaction of blades to the water striking offers lot of losses.So some other much much more efficient Solid elastic type resistance system is used in actual engine.

Elaboration of my idea in brief:

The criteria for resistance system in my engine is:

1) first of all it should be overcommable.
2) it should be present only downwards and not upward.
3) The resistance system should be highly/reasonably efficient(output by input)
4) Amount of overcommable resistance should be reasonably large enough.

If the resistance cannot satisfy these conditions,then it cannot be used in my engine.

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this.
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed [It occurs in beams due to mainly Creep.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation))

So my engine does not go against laws of physics.In fact what I have told here about mechanism of Creep due to stress becoming unbearable is the backbone of structural engineering and the first question for an interview could be “how beams fail under self weight load and external weight load.”My technology does not bend physics but uses it in a altogether different way.

It is like removing some upward resistance and hence you do not find water in left semi bowl in the analogous example(The resistance system is water in Rightside of semi bowl coupled to a energy converter water turbine.).

For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,

Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.

Well reality is always nonsense:The way galileo's theory was a nonsense to the church priest,similarly my theory is nonsense to you.If you think,my concept is not correct,ban me.As I know,all good technologies are being suppresed like this.Atleast I am not so worst as the members at Bessler Wheels Forum (http://www.besslerwheel.com/) who are trying to make PMM and who have worst knowledge in physics.Members at bessler wheels forums were indeed quite supportive but their knowledge in physics is really bad.Atleast 3 members started arguing with me that Efficiency can exceed one.

Gravity acts on a body based on it's distance from the ground (I.E. F=G((m1xm2)/r^2) where r is the distance between the two objects). The horizontal length it travels has nothing to do with the force it imparts to the object. In fact, having the long ramp you speak of would give you LESS energy then just dropping the ball from the same height as you would loose energy to friction from the ramp and air resistance instead of just air resistance.

Gravity is continuous, and does not act only for one shot.

With refernce to analogous example on flickr(talking of water resistance,not about powder resistance and not talking about the another gravity engine concept discussed in the recently closed forum involving semicircular path),

The idea behind the overcommable resistance is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object/ball by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

If this is nonsense then the concept of creep is also incorrect and then there will be no meaning of calculating weight loading in structures in complex engineering.

Every Material Science textbook will give same explanation on Creep which I have given above.That is:
"The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply suppo..................resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks."

But to understand what is creep,you should know the concepts of stress,dislocation,weight loading,etc which mechanical and civil engineers use daily.

Note that overcomming resistance comcept is similar to concept of creep with the exception that creep occurs over a very long time whereas the process of downward overcommable resistance occurs in simply extended nanoseconds time.

Also note that the Flickr webpage uploaded image shows Water resistance only on right side and not on left side.

The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance

That's nonsense, as you've been told before. The time an object is at a particular height has nothing at all to do with it's gravitational potential.

What you think is nonsense.
If what you think is correct then Material science ,Mechanics of material,machine design textbooks have to be rewritten.
Gravity is continuously acting on a body,It does not act only for one shot.

If you you said is correct,then the concept of Creep is also NonSense and there will be no need to do any calculaton of weight loading over structures.And then there will be nothing like Atomic dislocations and no stress will be produced.
By the way do you know what is stress,atomic dislocation sue to slipping of atomic plane/ grain boundries and what is Creep?
Have you studied metallurgical material science?

If you hold any object by a hinged support continuously at a height(like a cantilever),will gravity act only for a single pulse on the object????

No No,it will act Continiously and hence there is a continuos opposite reaction force from the holder/hinged support and thus making the net further increase in P.E. to allmost zero.
<--------- |— -------->= 0

What if the speed of heavy attached ball to rod reduces for nanoseconds by trying to go against water resistance?

The more the time offered for ball to stay at a position,the more gravity acts on it.

The key to any gravity engine design is to somehow use gravity as energy input.

It's also right if said theoratically that "energy supplying and recovery process "is just like a or analogous to a catalyst,which is used to let the resistance overcomming process through gravity take place without actually any net change of electrical energy form/format from one form to another form of energy.The energy used to overcome resistance is then converted to electrical energy by a suitable energy conversion system.

The idea is using the gain in gravity immediately as the heavy ball pushes the overcommable resistance,instead of a static Non-Overcommable resistance.

To achieve this,the resistance used should be Overcommable and not 100 percent fixed.

Gravity is continuous, and does not act only for one shot.

With refernce to analogous example on flickr(talking of water resistance,not about powder resistance and not talking about the another gravity engine concept discussed in the recently closed forum involving semicircular path),

The idea behind the overcommable resistance is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object/ball by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

If this is nonsense then the concept of creep is also incorrect and then there will be no meaning of calculating weight loading in structures in complex engineering.

Every Material Science textbook will give same explanation on Creep which I have given above.That is:
"The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply suppo..................resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks."

But to understand what is creep,you should know the concepts of stress,dislocation,weight loading,etc which mechanical and civil engineers use daily.

Note that overcomming resistance comcept is similar to concept of creep with the exception that creep occurs over a very long time whereas the process of downward overcommable resistance occurs in simply extended nanoseconds time.

Also note that the Flickr webpage uploaded image shows Water resistance only on right side and not on left side.

F=G((m1xm2)/r^2 is continuous, it is all the energy you can get from height of r to the ground.

What you think is nonsense.
If what you think is correct then Material science ,Mechanics of material,machine design textbooks have to be rewritten.
Gravity is continuously acting on a body,It does not act only for one shot.

If you you said is correct,then the concept of Creep is also NonSense and there will be no need to do any calculaton of weight loading over structures.And then there will be nothing like Atomic dislocations and no stress will be produced.
By the way do you know what is stress,atomic dislocation sue to slipping of atomic plane/ grain boundries and what is Creep?
Have you studied metallurgical material science?

Have you studied basic physics? Because your posts say no....

Without studying physics,how will I get admitted to Bangalore's prestigious college?,be logical.

Note that this overcommable resistance process occurs at blink of an eye:very fast.
In the case of creep,it takes many years and consume lot of continuous gravitational energy acted on it.

What you think is nonsense.
If what you think is correct then Material science ,Mechanics of material,machine design textbooks have to be rewritten.
Gravity is continuously acting on a body,It does not act only for one shot.

If you you said is correct,then the concept of Creep is also NonSense and there will be no need to do any calculaton of weight loading over structures.And then there will be nothing like Atomic dislocations and no stress will be produced.
By the way do you know what is stress,atomic dislocation sue to slipping of atomic plane/ grain boundries and what is Creep?
Have you studied metallurgical material science?

If you hold any object by a hinged support continuously at a height(like a cantilever),will gravity act only for a single pulse on the object????

No No,it will act Continiously and hence there is a continuos opposite reaction force from the holder/hinged support and thus making the net further increase in P.E. to allmost zero.
<--------- |— -------->= 0

What if the speed of heavy attached ball to rod reduces for nanoseconds by trying to go against water resistance?

The more the time offered for ball to stay at a position,the more gravity acts on it.

The key to any gravity engine design is to somehow use gravity as energy input.

It's also right if said theoratically that "energy supplying and recovery process "is just like a or analogous to a catalyst,which is used to let the resistance overcomming process through gravity take place without actually any net change of electrical energy form/format from one form to another form of energy.The energy used to overcome resistance is then converted to electrical energy by a suitable energy conversion system.

The idea is using the gain in gravity immediately as the heavy ball pushes the overcommable resistance,instead of a static Non-Overcommable resistance.

To achieve this,the resistance used should be Overcommable and not 100 percent fixed.

Funny you mention civil engineering. My GF has a masters in civil engineering and she says your wrong. But again, go ahead and waste your money building this thing. When it doesn't work like your think don't say we didn't warn you.

Does she says that creep doesnot occurs? And does she says that weight is not continuous?

Without studying physics,how will I get admitted to Bangalore's prestigious college?,be logical.

Note that this overcommable resistance process occurs at blink of an eye:very fast.
In the case of creep,it takes many years and consume lot of continuous gravitational energy acted on it.

Is that an online college or something?

She says that F=G((m1xm2)/r^2 and that it means you can't possibly get more work out dropping something then it takes to lift it. In fact you're going to lose energy on the drop due to air resistance, but anyone in high school could tell you that.

Without studying physics,how will I get admitted to Bangalore's prestigious college?,

Baksheesh.

Moderator note: two threads on the same topic have been merged.

Usually, reposting a thread that has been closed by a moderator is taken to be overriding a moderator's edit, and results in a ban for the user reposting the thread. In this instance, we'll assume that you, Aman shah, weren't aware of the policy. But now you are.

Aman shah:

Let's remove gravity from your engine altogether. That way the dummies here can be taught what you are proposing. After all a gravity engine is a gravitational force engine is a force engine, right?

Give us a simpler source of force since we obviously don't understand gravity. How about a rubber band? It's easier for us to understand. Let's assume the average rubber band produces a force F = kx where k is something like the modulus of elasticity and x is the distance it's stretched.

Take a common household rubber band and install it in your gravity machine at the point where you have gravity producing the force. Connect your force machine to a 100 W light bulb and shoot a video of this bulb shining for 10 minutes. Put an analog clock in the picture so we can watch the hands turn. That will help the skeptics.

Come back tomorrow and post a link to your video. Then we can learn more from you after that on this thread.

Thanks JamesR.

Thanks Acquesous LD,

I would have given the exact details of my engine instead of the analogous example.What rubber band will do?
Not only exact details,even a photoshoot and video of the exact engine and even might have sold official patent license to use it online.

Question:Why analogy?I didnot wanted to give example/analogy of water resistance in bowl OR example of Overcommable Powder resistance.I wanted to be straightforward.

Answer:The problem is the Patent regulations.

I am not a lawyer but I want to protect someone from copying it and obtain a patent before me for my invention.Why somebody else patent my idea in his/her name by stilling my idea and get Credit for my invention.

Patent law says"A patent document is published in Official gazette for public Opposition and further legal processing ONLY if the idea is novel AND it is never and not at all published anywhere else."

This is perhaps the only reasion that I have given valid Analogy like of overcommable water resistance downwards with deeper explanation with help of concept of "Creep".

Anybody who says that creep doesnot exists has not studied material science textbooks.

Sttresses and creep are one of the most fundamental theories in Engineering.

It is really shame to know that most people here have not heard about mechanism of creep and do not know that gravity is Continous.

To Aman Shaw:

Don´t worry about problems of disclosure of any patent on an engine that continuously* gets energy from a gravity field. The patent office does not even send such claims to an examiner. - They just immediately throw them in the trash can as that violates conservation of energy. All "over unity" device (get more energy out than you put in) claims are just discarded, (but your application fees will not be refunded).

So they can quickly trash can silly claims is why the application must state the claims at the beginning. - Not even the reception secretary will read the application if it is claiming to get net energy out. Her job is to route non-silly applications to the proper examination section, or in your case, the "circular file" on the floor next to her desk that the janitor will empty that evening.

The energy in a gravitational field remains constant so long as the mass distribution does. You can get energy (do work) when you lower a mass in the gravity field, but of course, you must do at least** that much work to restore the starting conditions. To complete the engine´s cycle.

* Or even intermittently in part of an engine cycle gets more energy out than put in during the completed cycle of the engine. I.e. is an "over unity" machine.

** In practice you ALWAYS put more energy in than you get out as their are friction losses.

Aman, it is a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to say, but you seem to have a very basic misconception about creep which leads you to a further misconception about gravity.

You seem to think that creep occurs due to increasing stress. That is not necessary - creep occurs under constant stress, the creep is time dependent. For a constant stress the creep increases over time.

Since you incorrectly think that creep requires an increasing stress, and creep occurs with gravity you incorrectly conclude that the PE of the material must be increasing.

I would have given the exact details of my engine instead of the analogous example.What rubber band will do?
It will prove what a great idea you have. A rubber band produces force. By demonstrating that you can develop power from force, you will establish yourself as a great scientist.


Not only exact details,even a photoshoot and video of the exact engine and even might have sold official patent license to use it online.No problem. Keep your gravity engine secret. Instead show how to develop power from a rubber band. That way you get the attention of the scientists here. No one understands your gravity engine, so your secret is safe.

To Aman Shaw:

Don´t worry about problems of disclosure of any patent on an engine that continuously* gets energy from a gravity field. The patent office does not even send such claims to an examiner. - They just immediately throw them in the trash can...
Actually they do go to the examiner and - to the everlasting annoyance of examiners everywhere- are supposed to be examined for novelty and obviousness just like any other patent. The only difference is that in addition to rejections over the prior art, you are likely to get an additional rejection for "lack of utility," because inventions that don't work aren't supposed to be granted patents.

Actually they do go to the examiner and - to the everlasting annoyance of examiners everywhere- are supposed to be examined for novelty and obviousness just like any other patent. The only difference is that in addition to rejections over the prior art, you are likely to get an additional rejection for "lack of utility," because inventions that don't work aren't supposed to be granted patents.I lived in MD near DC and 30 or so years ago, you could go into the stacks and make your own patent search to see if "prior art" existed, I did that in the optics section. What I had invented did not have “prior art.” I now hold a long expired patent which I still think is an important contribution to solar energy collection and utilization.* - So did the engineers at Shell, but when we got to the stage where some sort of licensing agreement was needed, their legal Department, told the engineers to cease all communication with me.

Yes you are not supposed to be able to patent something that does not / cannot in principle** do what is claimed for it, but inventions need not have any utility.

During my search I found a granted invention, made shortly after WWI. It was an airplane with cylindrical (Plano convex) glass wings. Flat side on the bottom so it probably could fly.*** Inventor suggested it fly over and along the enemy trenches at the focal length altitude when sun was shining. Claimed it would at least blind, if not set on fire, the enemy troops hiding in the trenches. A well thrown rock, not to mention a bullet, would crash it. Invention had ZERO utility, but he got his patent!

* I solved, in a practical way,**** the fundamental problem of efficient thermal use of solar energy. Solar energy almost has a "catch 22" - If the temperature is very high for good Carnot limited conversion efficiency then the back radiation of IR makes net energy collected only a small fraction of the incident solar energy. Read how I solve this problem in my US patent 4,033,118 (mass flow solar absorber)

It gets very hot absorbing 100% of the incident solar energy and has nearly zero re-radiation loses! I expected it to be used for reversible endothermic chemical processing as that solves the energy storage problem as well. (Why I contacted energy related chemical companies like Shell.) I gave as an example the thermal disassociation of gas SO3 into SO2 and O2 with later re-oxidation of the SO2 for heat release at about 1000C as I recall. (Both sulfur oxides stored as compressed liquids.)


** Perpetual motion inventions I think do make it past the receptionist to an examiner (who will quickly find some point with friction) as they are not impossible in principle - just in practice (except for super conducting currents, especially, if an when slightly higher supper conducting temperatures are achieved).

Over unity devices are impossible in principle. (They violate conservation of energy.) If that is claimed, the reception secretary just discards them, That is my understanding from 30+ years ago speaking with her. I spent several very interesting days doing my own patent search.

*** The army recognized the utility of airplanes for war and did not want the Curtis Wright company to get patents, when they made plane that could fly. (The famous one tested at Kitty Hawk could not fly - It never did - not even the replica made 100 years later with modern fuel.) Army, not wanting to pay for license, claimed they flew first, but in secret. Fortunate for Curtis - Wright, they got hold of a photo of the army´s plane, with its plano-convex wings, FLAT SIDE UP! Army thought wings should "skim over the air" like a rock over water! The wright brothers were careful scientists, with wind tunnel testing etc. They deserve great credit for applying the scientific method to engineering problem - but not for being the first to fly. Curtis was a "motor-cycle nut" who had a motor with the HP to weight ratio needed for flight that the wright brother did not have.

**** Wavelength selective filters (transmit sun light but reflect IR back to the absorber) had been patented, but they are total impractical. If placed over the 100s of square meters of primary collectors they can survive but cost 50 or more times more than the collecting mirrors do. If placed in the concentrated sunlight near the absorber, they can be smaller and affordable, but crack when sun emerges from a cloud or if rain starts to fall when they are very hot due to internal absorption etc. If very hot, they of course are also radiating energy away.

AFAIK, my invention is the ONLY solution to this fundamental problem. I mathematically demonstrated how well it would work in two separate papers published in Applied Optics which are referenced in the patent. The papers do not mention that they relate to a solar absorber, as patent was not yet granted when they were published.

Hi Billy, "utility" is patent legal-speak for "able to do what it's supposed to do." 35 USC S. 101 states that an invention must be "useful" to deserve a patent. The PTO calls this the "utility requirement," and interprets "useful" to mean "able to work." Of course, there is no guarantee that the examiner will do his job correctly, so it's possible for things to slip through. The WWI-era patent that you mention would have been granted under different laws; how the PTO (and courts) interpret the utility requirement has changed over the decades.

I don't know how things went 30 years ago, but today any application will go to the examiner for examination, no matter how impossible, silly, or insane it might be. Sadly, they must all be examined - it's what you buy for your application fee. I have never recieved an application for a pmm or over-unity machine, but I have seen some bafflingly-insane stuff...

... I have never recieved an application for a pmm or over-unity machine, but I have seen some bafflingly-insane stuff...I take it you are an examiner. Do you work in DC or one of the branch offices? Being an examiner must be one of the most interesting technical jobs that exist.

Hi Billy, "utility" is patent legal-speak for "able to do what it's supposed to do." 35 USC S. 101 states that an invention must be "useful" to deserve a patent. The PTO calls this the "utility requirement," and interprets "useful" to mean "able to work." Of course, there is no guarantee that the examiner will do his job correctly, so it's possible for things to slip through. The WWI-era patent that you mention would have been granted under different laws; how the PTO (and courts) interpret the utility requirement has changed over the decades.

I don't know how things went 30 years ago, but today any application will go to the examiner for examination, no matter how impossible, silly, or insane it might be. Sadly, they must all be examined - it's what you buy for your application fee. I have never recieved an application for a pmm or over-unity machine, but I have seen some bafflingly-insane stuff...

Did you all have a good laugh when the snuggy come through?

I take it you are an examiner. Do you work in DC or one of the branch offices? Being an examiner must be one of the most interesting technical jobs that exist.I work at the PTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA (right across the river from DC). There aren't really any branch offices. We're in the process of opening one in Detroit, but it's not fully up and running yet (and no one is willing to move to Detroit).

It's definitely an interesting job, although how interesting any given day is depends on what you're searching for that day. Some days are better than others.

It's interesting to see so much cutting-edge technology (much of which is still a closely-guarded secret), but it can be annoying not being able to tell friends/family about what you work on. Sometimes you grant a patent and think "This is brilliant, I can't wait to see this implemented/on sale/whatever!" but then the technology never goes anywhere...

... There aren't really any branch offices. Yes now that I recall better they were just several other locations where you could go search - copies of all patents were there, but now, I think all of last decade or so must be available on the internet.
...Sometimes you grant a patent and think "This is brilliant, I can't wait to see this implemented/on sale/whatever!" but then the technology never goes anywhere...I expect that was the examiner´s POV about my solar thermal energy system - my POV anyway. You may have access to the original paper copy.

Do you know what was one of the most economically rewarding inventions of all? Years ago when people wrote with "fountain pens" filled from small bottles of ink, everyone was annoyed by fact is was impossible to use all the ink in the bottle. Some guy put a small diagonal piece of glass in the bottle near the top that let you use almost all the ink. He got 1 penny for every bottle sold! He soon became a multi-millionare! Every one bought a few ink bottles every year.

Howdy.....Hello.....Net-ftl, non exhaust thrust-faster than light. So an apple falls onto the earth, allow that apple to fall to a different place. Allow that different place to feel the apple and attract it.

Hi everybody,
I will come back soon,I have my engineering semister end exams running which has made me very very busy.I wanted to answer all quiries but let these exams finish off......Day after tomorow, I have elective exam on "Product design and manufacturing".

Thanks!

Aman, it is a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to say, but you seem to have a very basic misconception about creep which leads you to a further misconception about gravity.

You seem to think that creep occurs due to increasing stress. That is not necessary - creep occurs under constant stress, the creep is time dependent. For a constant stress the creep increases over time.

Since you incorrectly think that creep requires an increasing stress, and creep occurs with gravity you incorrectly conclude that the PE of the material must be increasing.


The potential energy increase is used allmost immediately.Such process is opposite process to something like Quassistatic process.

The only thing I am concerned is Frictional and back EMF losses which is an engineering problem.In ideal Reference condition,the concept is correct.
If anybody can give here any suggestions in choosing proper well efficient Electrical components,it will be really helpful or else I have to consult electrical engineers for suggestions on ultra efficient generators and motors.

To reduce losses,I have to select proper motors,generators,etc.
If the potential energy increase in my concept is opposite to a process similar to Quasistatic process, then that means increase in P.E. will be tending to zero at each point position of downward displacement.
Such a opposite process is only possible for one downward side overcommable resistance and not possible for a Fixed rigid resistance.

It is not necessary that creep occurs only due to stresses generated due to application of weight or self weight.

Thermal stresses can also cause Creep.

However,let us limit our discussion to only about Creep due to stress generated on account of applied weight.

Really do not exactly/confirmly know if anyone else other than me has succeded in development of Gravity powered engines,but that does not rule out the possibility of a Gravity powered engine.
However,there is a particular way to make a Gravity engine to make it work.A gravity engine will not work by itself.
You need to supply some External electrical energy to lift heavy element upwards in such a way that more (Approximately double) gravitational energy is consumed(taken in) than that of electrical energy input to lift heavy element upwards.People falsely stupidly think that there is more energy output than input.
But that's absolutely Not Correct.

Basically more gravitational energy (allmost double)input is consumed by the engine than that needed to lift the heavy element,in reality.Different scientists might have different versions of gravity engines but the most basic thing about more gravitational input will not change.

This will be how many forums now to which you have submitted your worthless idea? How many times have you repeatedly been told it will not and can not work? How many times have we spoon fed you the explanation?

Notice to which sub group they immediately moved your "idea" (just like several other forums).

If they know what's best for them, they will ban you (like the other forums have) before you clog these boards with spam.

When will you understand the problem isn't with us, it is with you?

Let them ban.No problem.

That will not change reality.No need to talk with donkeys who do not have ability to understand reality.If there is any misunderstanding by me myself, I am ready to correct myself,but simply nonsensical nonscientific statements which are made without understanding the discussed concepts by me here would not prove me wrong.

For example,you need more energy to push more mass and less energy to lift less mass at same speed,upwards.And I appreciate that frictional and back EMF losses has to be minimised.
Now if anyone do not have ability to understand how much energy is needed to move how much weight and why I have used rotary motion rather than Sliding vertical motion;;;then his/her attempt to prove me wrong is absolutely Nonsense.

And yes,I am not supporting any idea on Perpetual Motion Machines.It you want to know why,please read and understand my whole post.You are thinking that I am supporting PMM just because you haven't read and understood the post with Flickr example properly before commenting such nonsense thing.

So let me give you a practical, real life experiment that you can conduct that will hopefully allow you to understand why this will not work so you can stop clogging up this forum with your nonsense. Find yourself a 3 or 4 story tall slide, it can be a curly slide since you seem to think that that will make a difference somehow. Slide down said slide. You are fine right? Now, go to the top of said slide, but instead of sliding down the slide, jump off the side. You are not fine right? This is why your idea is crap. You will get the most energy out of a straight up and down fall because you are not losing energy to friction as you do with the slide. Since Issac Newton we have known that you cannot get more energy out of gravity then it takes to lift the object in the first place, end of story.

That will not change reality.No need to talk with donkeys who do not have ability to understand reality.

Grab a mirror.



And yes,I am not supporting any idea on Perpetual Motion Machines.It you want to know why,please read and understand my whole post.You are thinking that I am supporting PMM just because you haven't read and understood the post with Flickr example properly before commenting such nonsense thing.

I have read MANY of your posts on all the different forums. Your ARE supporting perpetual motion. I have seen all of your crayon drawings & I'm not impressed.

It is almost as if you are not even reading any of the responses. You are just cutting & pasting your responses from the other forums.

Every single forum you post this garbage on either moves the topic to their junk science/pseudoscience/fantasy sub-forum or they outright delete because posting perpetual motion/over unity machines violates their TOS.

And yet, you still insist the problem lies with us and not with you.

TBdollia,
Hi,Donkey,Sorry,again your comment has not convinced me.Neither you have understood why I have uses half cycle motor and half cycle generator by using Commutator,neither you know anything about stresses and what is overcommable resistance.

Billvon commented regarding this topic on some other thread:



Common sense tells one that if you get energy from dropping something it will not be greater than the energy used to lift it.
Oh,that's it???
That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.

That also depends on the resistance variation.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.

A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.

Basically you are violating law of energy conservation by claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.
And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.
No, that's not how gravity works.
The amount of energy needed to lift something against gravity doesn't depend on the resistance of a medium. If you lift say, a ball off the floor, there is almost no resistance from the atmosphere. If you drop the same ball (after lifting it somehow) from a great enough height it reaches terminal velocity, it stops accelerating.

Resistance to motion because of a viscous medium is a secondary effect. If you lifted the ball off the floor fast enough (even over a short distance) then the atmosphere would 'react' and resist the motion. It doesn't have to be free-falling from a great enough height that the atmosphere reacts to the motion, in other words (ignoring changes in atmospheric pressure).

If the ball is at the bottom of a container of some viscous fluid, say, and attached to a string, pulling the string upwards slowly means minimal resistance, whereas pulling it quickly results in more resistance. But gravity acts as a constant force downwards, so given a viscous enough medium like say, heavy oil, letting the ball fall downwards through this medium means it will reach a terminal velocity. Resistance to motion because of a medium is independent of the constant force of gravity.

In that case,the calculation of stresses will not depend on the resistance of medium.I mean that you will no longer need to use stress-Strain diagrams.
In this case you will prove the concepts of elastic limit,yield stresses,to be useless.

There is a limit to which anybody can withstand resistance.In case you haven't read this in one of my other thread,
this is what I wrote which I am revising it here just for clarification:

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this.
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed [It occurs in beams due to mainly Creep.]

(Note that I have two different concepts on two different gravity engines.Not to confuse between two different concepts.

I didn't wanted to discuss two different Gravity power concepts on same thread but I didnt came to know that I started discussing both the concepts on same thread.The overcommable resistance concept based Gravity power device is being discussed on "Alternative Theories "Section: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113803 )

Then the calculation of stresses will not depend on the resistance of medium.Stresses on what? The medium is certainly stressed by an object moving through it--it has to move out of the way accordingly. Eventually a limit is reached, and the object no longer accelerates under a constant force. This limit is how much of the medium (in units of volume) can be displaced per unit of time and obviously depends on the viscosity.

Otherwise different objects would freefall at different terminal velocities in the atmosphere, and they all reach the same vt. So even more obviously, the viscosity of a medium and vt is independent of gravity (apart from any density gradient). Note though, that a liquid medium can have a pressure gradient but no density gradient, so therefore a ball freefalling through thick oil sees a constant displacement of fluid at vt.

This limit is how much of the medium (in units of volume) can be displaced per unit of time and obviously depends on the viscosity.

That is why the process is cyclic and not straight vertical.
Note that the Ananlogy that uses liquid is only for illustration/explanation.

As already mentioned earlier in my other thread on alternative forums,

Limitation of the example/Analogy discussed here:
1)The analogy only explains a single complete cycle of the engine in comparison to Continuous repeating cycle of the actual engine.
2)Water is not used in actual engine due to efficiency problems of water turbine energy conversion processes.Water splashing is turbulent and blades opposite reaction of blades to the water striking offers lot of losses.So some other much much more efficient Solid elastic type resistance system is used in actual engine.

Inspite of this limitation,the analogy successfully proves that a resistance increases intake of gravitational energy to a ball.
The process is like how a roof fractures after sometime due to Continous Central Self weight ,where columns arent present.The columns are resistance here which are overcommed after long period of time.
The continuous gravitational force acting on the roof actually opposes resistance offeree by column but ultimately there is a limit to resistance that can be offered by columns.
If you don't know why metal implants (don't know what's exactly those metal implants used in columns are called)used in columns become weak by weight then you should study material science,Dislocation theory,slippage of atomic plane,stress growth based on Grain Growth theories,etc.

Inspite of this limitation,the analogy successfully proves that a resistance increases intake of gravitational energy to a ball.
No it doesn't. Only the mass of an object is subject to gravitational energy, or rather to the force of gravity.
You haven't understood that gravity is independent of the viscosity of any medium an object moves through, it would seem.

Your claim would mean that diving under water would make you weigh more than you do on land.
It's complete rubbish.

As already mentioned earlier in my other thread on alternative forums,



You mean the forums where you've already been banned as a crank?