Free energy machine powered by gravity. BRAZIL

reply to post by Wifibrains


Worthy of a star and flag, there has too date been no proven (or unsuppressed) perpetual motion device (and it would break the laws of physics as far as conservation of energy is concerned so is impossible and a fraud) but there is an offset caused by the rotation of the earth and the force of gravity along with it's interaction with both the sun and moon that could in theory be tapped to provide a free source of energy however it would require structures on a gargantuan scale and provide only negligible levels of energy maybe not even enough to overcome inertia.

There is a very intriguing area called inertial propulsion however while not being exactly the same thing this is in the same vein and may be of high interest to you, it may hold a possible future method to travel through a vacuum (though the available evidence suggests otherwise) without the need for mass displacement and the need for space craft to carry bulky fuel but only if it can be proven to work off world and is not using or exploiting the same rotational offset mentioned above (if it is using the same offset then the inertia problem, is proven false.).

www.economicexpert.com...:propulsion:engine.html

Inertial Propulsion Device
contest.techbriefs.com...

Another
www.rexresearch.com...

Another
www.kodasplace.com...

Another
mindbites.com...

The point being that they may actually not be propelling anything at all but instead displacing the energy inherent in the earth's own gravitation and rotation as we see the effect in the way water goes down a drain, it spins in opposite directions north and south of the equator so if it can effect the water surely there may be a way to tap that energy though it is most likely only very negligible amount's there to play with but that is the most likely explanation for these devices.

As for perpetual motion, no it does not work, at least until we learn to tap the zero point (Vacuum) energy which is far beyond any practical science now extant.

I suspect this is a money spinning scheme and the brain behind it will disappear as soon as he has milked enough out of it but the above does deserve study.

Other methods of generating small amounts of free energy are giant thermocouple's, at the equator over deep ocean or at the poles use the earth's own natural electromagnetic field to inductively drive huge superconducting coil's and pass that through smaller and smaller coils down to were it could be tapped, we know of ways and methods but will likely never exploit them as economics drives our society's not altruistic intellects.

My crude and sloppy horribly animated .gif that I quickly made in under 10min.


I'm fairly sure the proportions are off and some other bits are not exact, but pretty much what I described in the second (large) paragraph of my previous post. (It's close enough.) At least from there anyone can get an idea of the principle and see if something can be worked out for experimental reproduction. Considering all the factors if the work in (moving the weight along the belt) is less than work out (output at ratchet end), then they might have something here.

I'd like to see this thing in operation to see if I guessed it right.

Even if it does actually work, I'd suspect the power to weight ratio is horrible. (Because you need the weight to get the power.) Scaled down, you'd need something like the mass of a lead acid car battery to keep a small electronic device like a laptop going. But that's acceptable if it's for a static installation, which seems to be the intent here.

Originally posted by pauljs75
My crude and sloppy horribly animated .gif that I quickly made in under 10min.

I'm fairly sure the proportions are off and some other bits are not exact, but pretty much what I described in the second paragraph of the previous post. (It's close enough.) At least from there anyone can get an idea of the principle and see if something can be worked out for experimental reproduction. Considering all the factors if the work in (moving the weight along the belt) is less than work out (output at ratchet end), then they might have something here.

I'd like to see this thing in operation to see if I guessed it right.

Even if it does actually work, I'd suspect the power to weight ratio is horrible. (Because you need the weight to get the power.) Scaled down, you'd need something like the mass of a lead acid car battery to keep a small electronic device like a laptop going. But that's acceptable if it's for a static installation, which seems to be the intent here.

I would propose that for that idea to work, one could use magnets, as opposed to catches. i.e the magnet would be powerful enough to attract (adding some momentum) and trap the arm and the top of the cycle. The weight would overcome the force as it comes around and start the down stroke. One could also use a magnet at the bottom to give some extra acceleration to the arm as it falls, but the force required to break the attraction would probably render it ineffective I would imagine. Electro magnets on the other hand would work, but then energy is being added into a system that is supposed to be self sustaining,

The photos don't show it being hooked up to anything, I wouldn't say the device or photos are a hoax, I'd say the claim connected to them are. A pole with some gear things = nothing, where's the generator/motor/engine? It's not seen in the photos, wake me up when there's a youtube video, because free energy is impossible I won't be holding my breath. There's this thing called the Second law of thermodynamics.

en.wikipedia.org...

"perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible"

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Wifibrains

There are no counterweights. The force comes straight from the vertical pieces that are hinged to move vertically. Apparently the weight of those columns alone is deemed sufficient. The excess in force comes from the geometric relationship of the force components.

If (and that is an if; I have run no calcs yet) this thing works, it can be downsized to smaller individual-home sizes. That much I am sure of already.

I am halfway tempted to build a model...

TheRedneck

While the DOWN weight is lifting another portion -- it has some leverage, so the up force is slightly greater than the down force -- HOWEVER, the math here is that you calculate the force over a longer distance (the longer arc motion required to use leverage) so that it comes out the same. The energy in this system is neutral and without added energy you lose whatever excess you had in this system over time to friction.

It's not much different than a lot of other perpetual motion schemes.

>> I do believe that some sort of Zero Point Energy device will one day be created, but it will be taking advantage of blocking certain forces by bending and unbending space/time. Forcing very high energy quantum noise to be converted into work -- but that is TRANSFERRING energy from a high concentration to low -- not creating it from nothing.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

Pretty cool stuff, I really hope it works like they say it does.

But it's not even built. How can they say it works?

Da Vinci had models for flying machines, did they work?

Originally posted by Gazrok
If this thing works, anyone building it had better not tell anybody. I'm thinking you'd likely end up the victim of some kind of "accident". The world runs on fossil fuels. Mess with that at your own peril. I'd love to have something like this powering the ranch, but I'd never tell a soul about it, if I did.

Let us know what you find Redneck!

Is there any further detail on the specs somewhere in these 5 pages? Not much to go on from the OP sources.

You must realize that at one point it was "big coal" and "big steam" that were dominant, and gasoline and crude were just fancy forms of "free energy".... I mean, the stuff used to bubble out of the ground. Once people realized they could utilize it, I chute you naught, gas was, "free energy"...

It was unlimited and abundant, and nearly no cost to the people who first utilized it. Somehow, Big Steam wasn't able to keep it down though.

As another person mentioned, power is power, power companies are power companies, and they evolve. The cheaper they produce power, the more profit they make.

You might be able to suppress a stupid little innovation that you don't own the patents on that will make your competitor an extra 20 million a year, but you can't suppress billions of dollars in pure profit revenue...

Originally posted by Wifibrains

Originally posted by boncho
If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing. Also not free energy, also not perpetual motion.

-facepalm-

Gravity engine?

The energy produced will be free, as it will not be paid for, unless you count maintenance costs. And it will run on its own momentum.

All energy is actually free, so is oil, so is water, but the problem is that once something produces power it has to run through an electrical grid/ utility, hence we will always get charged and screwed. lol

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Many years ago, I built a machine based on this basic principle. Unfortunately, when designing the journals I ran into a problem with construct-ability. I redesigned the journals quickly and made a huge mistake in the stress calcs. I started assembling it, it started turning, then it ripped itself apart.

It never made a full revolution, so I never said much about it. I later realized there was a wear issue as well, so I scraped that design for a different one, one which I was never able to afford to complete. I still have the plans and calcs for it (and still have the remains of that original motor somewhere).

There are some differences in force application geometry, so I will need to rework my old calculations to see if this arrangement has merit. If/when I can find time to o so I will report back. It does have a chance of operating, though, based on my early experiments and the general design. If it does, it is an ingenuous way of overcoming that wear issue.

TheRedneck

I'm not sure if I was thinking along the same lines with a "wear issue", but my basic thought was - if you can create a machine which will provide "a little extra energy" through its process, in order to truly create more than what is used, it must overcome the energy (and expense) of building and maintaining it. Mechanical moving parts like this just don't seem to be where the solution lies, IMUO (the U is for 'uneducated' on the subject.)

Nevertheless, as pure science, any breakthrough can be helpful in moving the goal posts closer. I hope this works, though I believe capturing energy without expending fuel will end up coming from the world of either quantum, or acoustic physics (or a combination of the two.)

Originally posted by Oannes
Our patent office is full of it. They always state that free energy devices can't be patened. That's only because they know that big oil interests aren't into free anything. I always knew that gravity could be utilized to create simple free energy devices. Gravity is a force that is always present. They sell toys that demonstrate the ability to run forever given a single starting push. Just because someone says its not possible, dosen't mean you should stop researching it.

Science is about doing the work. Not trying to debunk something.

In response to your last sentence:

batesvilleinschools.com...

What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:

A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;
A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

en.wikipedia.org...

WOW i live in Porto Alegre and never heard of this project but, well, after looking at their website it seems to be very recent. The latest photo is from a few days ago.. now i'm intrigued. Gonna try and visit their place and have a talk, maybe try and suggest to the person responsible for the project to come by this thread to answer questions and interact, if possible.

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by boncho

 

If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing.

Yeah, but you can't build a hydro dam in your backyard...

And if it resulted in cost free or virtually cost free, convenient, safe, clean and reliable source of energy, i don't think people around the world are going to be worrying over the mechanics and operational physics of the machine, or bothered whether it was perpetual motion or not.

These could be scaled down and installed in a garden shed or outbuilding and put anywhere..if it works. Dams are great, but they come with major drawbacks too.

The machines' housing would have to be soundproofed i reckon. Looks like it could be a noisy beggar, wouldn't fancy listening to a town full of those 24 hours a day!

I was just pointing out that energy from gravity is nothing new, certainly not free energy. And lets be honest, it's not actually gravity, the energy is coming from the sun (thermal) which heats the water, evaporates it to higher plains, and gravity then runs it downhill.

In any case, yes you could put this in your backyard, but as there is no energy input from outside, as many of us have pointed out, it will not work. Simple as that.

Your backyard would be better off with a charcoal BBQ.

Better energy conversion, and finely charred steaks to boot.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
to parse it - each "weight" has to produce 1.87kw more energy as it " falls " , than is required to " raise " it the same distance

[ thats over and above any internal losses from friction etc ]

the T&C prohibits the use of the one word that sums this up

This has been pointed out in this thread in probably 10 different variations. Yet people still comment, people still seem to think the OP might work in some way.

It's so bloody simply, how did we end up with 8 pages of discussion on something like this? Oh and what's Rossi been up to lately, speaking of elaborate energy hoaxes...

reply to post by TheRedneck


Seriously you needed calculations to figure out that wouldn't work

Originally posted by Wifibrains
The mechanism reminds me of this....

Try for reminding us of this guy....I could have swore I've seen his device on the TV show 'Beyond 2000.'

The OPs info is probably a huge hoax. A device that works on gravity that provides 'free' energy is a dream. One could do the same with a spring as this gravity device will require work to reset the gravity device. No free energy IMO. Friction will always work against this setting... Didn't we learn and prove this in intermediate school?

reply to post by Trueman


Well,if it is a hoax,is very big hoax

Great report, if it works this will be the last we will see of this.

Also on a different note concerning the pictures.... i see a lot of Orb activity around the machine, as it is been built the activity increases, just a thought

reply to post by pauljs75


You're actually not doing anything fancy with this and are falling into the same trap as the OP and various other examples. Trying it in the laboratory would not be the "final test" to see if it would work, all it would do is verify that it doesn't work.

The path that the weight is travelling is actually fixed, that is, it will travel the same path with each revolution, moving the angle of the belt doesn't change this. Each revolution essentially consists the weight going up and down, with some horizontal motion thrown in - thus gravitational potential energy will be converted to kinematic energy, then back to gravitational energy and so on. There will be losses involved, which is why you will find that the weight will eventually settle underneath the ratchet mechanism. If you give it a bit of a push maybe it will go around a few cycles before settling.

reply to post by TheRedneck

No, I cannot skip the torque integration... to do so requires an assumption. What I am looking for is a zero summation of torque around the shaft, to match the Conservation of Energy principle.

Yes, you can skip torque integration. Either approach uses the same model of physics, therefore all you are doing is finding a complicated, slow, way to do the exact same thing using the exact same model, and in the end you did indeed find this.

For example, in analyzing power systems, it is common to analyze things using apparent, real, and reactive power, and their relationships, rather than trying to analyse the current and voltage at each node. Both give the same results, using power is just a whole lot easier and faster.

Truth is that which is always correct. Therefore, the next step is to build an actual working device to see if it will or will not work. I may or may not get to that point, but I at least acknowledge the possibility, however slight, that I may do so.

+

You fail to examine any possibility of future discovery. If I am driving a car at 60 mph and shoot a bullet in front of the car at 60 mph, the bullet is traveling at 120 mph, right? WRONG! It is traveling at something extremely close to 120 mph, and as those speeds approach 186,000 mph, that tiny minuscule variation becomes substantial. T

In engineering, it is not necessary to attempt to test and do an in-depth analyzes of every possible system that you can possibly think of. To be blunt, to do so would reek of inexperience and would be an immense waste of time. You look at it, find a flaw using the most simple of analyses techniques, then move on and find something that works. If not, then you proceed with more complicated models and physical demonstration. The mechanics of macroscopic objects at relatively slow speeds are extremely well known, therefore, expecting future discovery by making a very complicated crank-shaft is absurd.

If you venture into an area, especially one that is not well scientifically known, find something you think may be unique, then use some basic analyses methods, if it passes that then you may be onto something and should proceed with more complicated analyses or physical testing. Anything else is a waste of time.