Gravity engine?

I have recently become interested in the idea of a gravity driven engine that works off of inertia, and kinetic energy. The idea of making power without the constant aid of fuel or electricity is very intriguing to me. Unfortunately I don�t think we will ever see anything like this anytime soon; because there is way too much of a vested financial/economic interest in the oil driven economy today. The oil companies have lots of money and power, and a big interest in suppressing things like fuel-less power. I 'm also not sure the worlds economy could stay intact and strong without fossil fuels.

I have searched around on the internet and found a few things.

www.besslerwheel.com...


www.fuellesspower.com...


www.fuellesspower.com...

the fueless power site has some other interesting stuff like the fueless heater thing, and a few other things.


Anyway I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on gravity engines? I would love to see some other designs and hear what people have to say about this topic.

I find these kind of technologies highly interesting too however most of those centrafugal devices would do nothing but occilate violently.

The energy always comes from somewhere. Because there is no principle of work provided with the fuelless engine, we can't know what it runs on (might be Stirling). The gravity engine is just a "perpetum mobile". It won't provide any energy output continuously. At best it can convert the potential gravitional energy of one arm to angular momentum. If you bounce a ball, haven't you noticed that the bounces get smaller, not bigger. It can't provide more energy than put into the machine when rising one arm orginally. Personally, I think that this is a fraud, the text is also written like a washing powder commercial. You can't make energy of nothing. Learn some physics.

And the so-called inertial drives need constant energy input.

[edit on 11/9/04 by tontsum]

there was a documentary on the history channel, where they interviewed a man who claims that he was inside area 51 where he was scanning through some documents and the documents reveiled the workings of alien craft which made use of gravity amplifiers. this is a truely fascinating concept and would like very much to learn more. but i dont think im gonna get into 51 any time soon. : /

if we are going to do it i think we need to work on these engines..or at least it might help
photoscience.la.asu.edu...
take a look and see what ya all think

It's bad that the oil companies are suppressing the developement of new non fuel driven engines. We would have alot less polution.

reply to post by boosted


You didnt look good enough!
free plans for 50hp fuelless engine here first make it work than pay em!
DOWNLOAD LINK HERE!
www.4shared.com...

thats the 50 hp direct link. i got it from this site
LOAD of plans here FREE! www.4shared.com...

SP500/ windmill plans/solar panel plans/fuelless heater.
download the pdf files and let us all know please!
Im gunna test one of these, not sure what plan tho.

While I agree we will eventually get inertial drives working, they won't be fuel-less. Over-unity is not going to be achieved. At least not in our lifetimes, nor our children's.

I have seen inertial drive tests that prove you can create a directional force without the use of propellant. But not without the expenditure of energy.

All this does is slightly bends the action reaction understanding of physics. (When you take a close look at how it works, it actually doesn't end up breaking laws at all.)

Don't trust anything that claims over-unity.

But the concept of creating force without pushing off anything is possible.

Ah, the more out than in again..,making something from nothing..That's impossible! haha..

I always found this avenue quite interesting, and am sure there has to be massive amounts of energy which can be harnessed from natures gravity. That force is consistently pulling on all mass, and yet this isn't considered a possible source of power? I think this guy already figured it out, as well as bessler. Is gravity not pulling down water from the tops of mountains onto water wheels which perform work? I think we need conversion and channeling, not creation. Natures created all of the power we need or could ever work with.


Site
www.newsourceofenergy.com...

[edit on 10-7-2008 by Freezer]

reply to post by Freezer


A good way of thinking of gravity is that it works against you as equally as it does for you.

For something to be used by gravity to do work, you have to counter gravity's force to get it up there.

In the case of water running downhill, it got up there due to evaporation, which is the power of the sun at work. Gravity just resets the balance.

Gravity can't be used as a power source on its own. It works great if you can continuously get something heavy up high, but it takes energy to get the mass up there... more energy than you'll get from it coming back down.

In the case of water running down the mountainside, thats water evaporation that gets it up there... direct result of solar energy.
So in that case, the option is to bypass both gravity and water, and move straight toward directly harnessing that solar energy.

Gravity would only be used effectively as a power source if it had a noticeable fluctuation to it. It's constant, and evenly distributed.

The closest thing we have to "gravity engines" are hydroelectric dams like Hoover Dam. In Hoover Dam, gravity pulls water from the top of the dam to the bottom of the dam. As the water flows down the dam, or "falls", the water's kinetic energy is used to drive turbines. The turbines generate electric power.

I do not know much about hydroelectric dams. Perhaps it would be feasible to build more of them and harness the power of gravity to generate electricity. I know there are only so many rivers out there that could house a hydroelectric dam, and it would not surprise me if nearly all of those rivers had dams on them. I also know that environmentalists and other groups often have objections to hydroelectric dams.

Originally posted by johnsky

Well technically I didn't have to pay for that evaporation. Just like nature provided the water, so it did with the evaporation, as well as all its other millions of formats of energy transfer and conversion. True we can say it works against you in certain ways, but not all equally. You identified the problem which is the first step, next comes the solution, and personally I don't believe anything is too impossible. Frankly I'm not smart enough to know whats impossible. Go back in time and tell a caveman its easy to fly around the world. We can put a man on the moon but we can't harness the power from gravity. What ambition we have here.

You need to go to Prof. Evert's site in Germany for his analysis of the "Spring Drive Motor". The problem with the prototype device is that since gravity is actually an acceleration the device ramped up speed very quickly. The way it is configured the bottom position weight of a pair is raised by gravity thru use of a small second-class levered counterweight, aided by a helper spring, every 180 degrees. Centrifugal force of rotation also comes into play as rotation starts and adds energy to the system along with gravity, and since its bottom weight is turned upward to strike a stop pin it built up so much hammer force on that pin that the machine wrecked itself time after time, rebuild after rebuild.

The freebie is in the spring. The counterweighted lever when at the top position is caused by gravity to try to swing the weight off its inner stop toward the outer circumference stretching the spring so that at bottom position this stored spring energy aids the counterweightd lever to lift the weight off bottom position and in doing so raises the center of gravity of the system making it topheavy and unstable thus coverting the gravity-induced change of weight position into rotational energy.

Sir William Congreve had a rotating tube with a weight ball inside that tripped a locking tine spring that reset itself when the tube rolled around and changed position.. It was a choppy movement because it took time for the ball to roll down and trip the spring again. 180 rotate, stop. 180 rotate, stop. Etc.

Gravity is a force, that is all. It's a rather weak one at that. Electromagnetism is far stronger. Gravity will never become a source of power(beyond what we use it for already) but it could provide a way to tap into limitless sources of power in other parallel universes eventually eg SG1's ZPM. Why do I say this? Because some people have speculated that the reason why gravity is so weak is due to the fact that it "floats" into and out of our universe and only a small fraction ever comes into contact with us in our universe.

This would be over-unity technically, because you'd be getting energy seemingly for free from nowhere by your perspective, but in reality you're just siphoning it off another reality. Could be very dangerous lol. You could rip a hole in the universe the size of.... Belgium.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by sardion2000]

How can you say gravity is not a strong force. It has actually been shown to bend space/time. I believe it will be shown eventually to be the missing link to solving time travel.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
How can you say gravity is not a strong force. It has actually been shown to bend space/time. I believe it will be shown eventually to be the missing link to solving time travel.

Gravity is by far the weakest force. It just so happens, though, that it's a lot easier to get a bunch of mass together than it is to get an equivalent amount of electric charge or of the weak force or of the strong force. Charge tends to dissipate, and the strong and weak forces only act over very small scales; they don't really add up with added mass.

Gravity tends to be a rather strong influence in the sorts of things we're used to, but it's still quite weak in comparison to other forces we're used to. The normal force, a product of electromagnetic interactions, is far stronger than gravity; gravity doesn't have the slightest chance of pulling you right through the atoms of the floor and likewise collapsing the whole of the earth into something like neutronium.

Any magnet worth it's ferroceramic can stick itself to the bottom of an iron object; clearly showing that over short ranges, the magnet is stronger than gravity.


I personally am waiting excitedly to see if CERN manages to uncover the source and nature of gravity. It's quite a mysterious force.

In regards to gravity being a weak force. We understand that gravity is billions and billions and billions of times weaker than the electromagnetic force the strong and weak nuclear forces are also many many times more powerful. The real question is why? (is a closed loop string that can travel into extra dimensions, is it a super tight loop in spacetime, we just don't know yet) This can be demonstrated by dropping a nail and picking it up with a magnet. Without hardly any resistance the magnet will always over power gravity. The goal of physics in the unified field theory subdivision are working fervently on combining each force into one super force at the quantum level and have alread succeded in bonding the strong and weak nuclear with electromagnetic force. We are waiting on the discovery of a mass carrying quark or an entirely new theory to describe gravity. This is one of the most exciting times in physics in history imo. Any way a gravity based power source sounds promising. It seems to me that it would have to work on perpetual motion principles but then again i'm a physics major not an engineer

[edit on 9-10-2008 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by johnsky
All this does is slightly bends the action reaction understanding of physics. (When you take a close look at how it works, it actually doesn't end up breaking laws at all.)

Can you please send links detailing that?

Essentially, if a vehicle starts moving in one direction, there is a body that must start moving in the opposite direction, by conservation of momentum. In case when you drive a car, it's actually planet Earth that takes up the imparted momentum. So your notion of motion without using propellant is quite intriguing, but I suspect incorrect.