• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
• # Gravitation - Energy of the Future

Discussion in 'The main mechanical design forum' started by Sentally, Sep 30, 2015.

1. ### SentallyMember

Joined:
Sep 2015
Posts:
6
0
Forget for a moment what modern inquisition says.
If every piece of the puzzle is falling into its place, what does common sense tell you?

It is not a big secret that in the lifetime of this generation, usual energy such as oil, natural gas and coal will be exhausted. Electricity also will go down to scarce supply. As alternative solutions, scientists propose solar, wind and other renewable energies, but with incredible stubbornness, they ignore the most affordable one: the power of universal gravitation. Gravitation is the one solution capable of providing the required amount of energy at a lesser price. Unfortunately, the idea itself is so discredited that no PhD dares to talk about it, not at least publicly.

The concept of this invention is employment of a downwards moving object to produce electricity.

There is nothing new in this idea, and as everyone before me, I encountered the same problem: lifting the object takes far more energy.

To resolve the problem, I took a different approach and employed balance, leverage and counterbalances as shown on the picture #1. The large circle represents the downward moving object or balance*, smaller circles represent counterbalances (combined mass of both counterbalances equal to the mass of the balance**), black triangles represent fulcrums, and lines connecting centers of the circles represent levers. The leverage ratio is 1:2. Due to this ratio, when balance is moving downwards, only half of the energy is used to lift the counterbalances.

But not so fast â€“ if we try to flip the system around axis X and repeat the move, we will soon discover that the side where balance is located is heavier than the side with the counterbalances; all energy gain will be lost on flipping. It is obvious on the picture #1 that the center of the large circle is twice farther from rotation axis X than centers of both counterbalances.

On July 17, 2014, a solution of the problem came unexpectedly, and I replaced the middle parts of the two levers with a leaf spring (picture #2). As a result, balance shifted downwards lifting both counterbalances and the entire system kept its equilibrium. Later I named it â€˜compound leverageâ€™. Keep in mind, the system does not induce its rotation a small motor is needed.

Replacing the balance* (middle piece) with a linear generator allows gravity-to-electricity conversion. Due to system equilibrium, only a small portion of that energy is spent on rotation.

This device has no conflict with Newtonian Law; it transforms [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]3[/SUB] of gravitational force applied to linear generator (middle piece) into ready-to-consume electricity

Do not embarrass yourself by denying, that the described system insures the balance downward movement, lifts counterbalances using only half of that energy and maintains equilibrium if rotated around axis X.

Letâ€™s take a closer look. On picture #3, the system is depicted from a different point of view (Axis X is pointing directly at your eye). Also, a pendulum is attached.

1) pendulum and its trajectory
2) counterbalances (second is hidden behind)
3) point of 180 degree rotation (axis x as on pictures #1 and #2 are directed towards you)
4) compound leverage
5) balance*

Suppose, pendulum does not move until the balance reached its lowest point â€“ conversely, balance does not move until the pendulum reached its highest point on the other side, also friction in bearings supporting system rotation and aerodynamic resistance does not exist. What will happen then? The pendulum will not stop, the system will move forever and the generator will not stop producing electricity, aka â€˜perpetual motionâ€˜.

Now back to reality. The ideal condition is movement without friction (but this does not exist). But, we can reduce friction to a minimum. Also, an increase of balance/counterbalance mass has a negligible impact on a pendulumâ€™s movement. This means that electricity produced by a generator weighing 1 kg is not enough to sustain its rotation. A generator weighing 100 pounds will produce enough power to rotate itself forever, and a generator weighing 10 tons will produce electricity for your entire neighbourhood. Need more? Make it heavier.

Intriguing? Letâ€™s go further.

Previously, I described the simplest model. But what if rotation and reciprocal balance movement are happening at the same time? It might produce some new force obstructing system rotation to the point of making the entire invention useless.

First, separation of two movements using a pendulum as previously described will eliminate such force.

Second, yes, centrifugal force shall be taken into account building this machine. Look at the picture #4; the system is rotating around axis X. In the situation shown on #4a, the balance and counterbalances are moving towards axis X until they reach it â€“ centrifugal force opposes this move, but past the axis X picture #4b, â€˜au contraireâ€™, the centrifugal force enforces the move. In other words, in a certain period of the rotation, we are losing energy due to centrifugal force; in the other period, we are gaining it back. Total gain/loss of energy is equal to zero.

There is another effect that affects system performance. I call it the â€˜figure skater effectâ€™. When a figure skater is spinning, extending his arms slows him down â€“ contrary to pulling his arms as close as possible, which accelerates his rotation. Similar to centrifugal effect, it happens during coincident rotation and back-and-forth movements.

Now take a look at picture #4a again. The figure skater is pulling his arms, it accelerates him. Picture #4b, the figure skater extending his arms, it slows him down. Here again, in one period we are losing energy in another we are gaining energy back.

As you might notice in the situation depicted on #4a, we are losing momentum due to centrifugal force but gaining it due to figure skater effect â€“ on picture #4b a reverse situation, centrifugal force is giving back the figure skaterâ€™s taking away. Both of the forces supposedly impeding the Gravity Powered Generator are compensating for each other bringing their combined result to zero. Combined zero hindering is exactly what is needed.

Fully loaded generator makes one full rotation in 5-10 seconds. Similar to conventional generator, increased demand for electricity from generator creates more resistance to its move and consequently to system rotation, it translates into lesser speed. Lesser speed means less figure skater and centrifugal effects. Generator working on the upper limit of its capacity also shows maximum efficiency.

What kind of electricity we are getting?

Aiming to reduce the friction, a conventional generator cannot be used; a linear DC generator is an obvious choice. Full rotation of the machine takes between 5 and 10 seconds to complete. During this time the generator* performs one complete back-and-forth movement. On picture #5a is a displayed electric current produced by such movement. The graphic is similar to alternate current but 250-600 times slower. Also, the graphic shows interruption in electric current caused by a period between the generatorâ€™s full stop and resuming its movement in another direction; depending on apparatus design, this interruption can last from a â€™fraction of a heartbeatâ€™ or, like in the pendulumâ€™s case, up to 3 seconds.

We can easily flip the low part of the graphic upwards using a rectifier and generator brushes, etc. Then by interconnecting several generators on a different rotation period, we will get a direct current, see picture #5b. It sounds complicated, but your computer like most electrical devices around you takes AC and transforms it into DC; there is no alternate current inside it. Chemical plants, smelters, steel mills, railways, and subways consume mostly DC.

Can I buy this generator for my home?
Since the Canadian government refused to patent this invention, further development stopped. It will take some more Chernobyls and Fukushimas before you will be able to install this generator in your basement.

Can it be used on road vehicles?

Yes, after a slight modification the Gravity Powered Generator will replace the internal combustion engine. What kind of modification? Wellâ€¦ this little secret I am taking with me...

* In this article: balance, large circle, or linear generator all mean the same.
** Extending the distance from fulcrums to counterbalances will reduce the mass of the latter still maintaining equilibrium. Such modification shall not increase power or efficiency of the machine but decrease its weight.

2.
3. ### ErichWell-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 2012
Posts:
222
2
You did not get a patent because the patent office will not patent perpetual motion machines.

What you propose won't work. The fact that you say it needs a motor to run proves it.

Gravity is a conservative force. That means that the potential energy is related only to position in the gravity field. The path taken has no effect on the energy. That means if your device operates on a cycle where the system comes back around to the same position, there is NO WAY to extract any energy from the system.

Go look at the thread entitle Holy Grail of Mechanical engineering in the Lounge forum. You will see the fruitless journey ahead of you if you persist.

Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
172
0

5. ### StramboMember

Joined:
Mar 2011
Posts:
21
0
Well worn path that leads nowhere...

I have been a successful Mechanical Engineer for 35 years. I can tell you with certainty that the proposed "gravity generator" will fail. You can choose to read or not read anything you want, and it doesn't change the laws of physics.

You'll find out if you keep trying.

6. ### K.I.S.S.Well-Known Member

Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
172
0
Strambo, unfortunately when someone has a 'secret' it's human nature to believe that they are the sole keeper of it, when in reality the secret is widely known, and in this case, disproved...
Our psyches also lean towards myth perpetuation - in other words, it's far easier to perpetuate a belief that any individual may have than to cogently argue to the contrary of that belief in the expectation that opinion will be changed...

Sentally - what goes up, comes down, and what comes down goes up again, but not quite as far... it really is that simple. Whether linearly or rotationally, it makes no difference.

7. ### Ed Schultheis PENew Member

Joined:
Oct 2015
Posts:
1
0
Sentally,

The sketches that you created are simple enough. I suggest that you build a simple working model of your device. You will quickly discover that this devise cannot generate any useful energy. If it were able to create useful energy, then you would have created the very first perpetual motion machine. You are simply not analyzing the system properly.

You also stated in your description above >>>
"Also, an increase of balance/counterbalance mass has a negligible impact on a pendulumâ€™s movement. This means that electricity produced by a generator weighing 1 kg is not enough to sustain its rotation. A generator weighing 100 pounds will produce enough power to rotate itself forever, and a generator weighing 10 tons will produce electricity for your entire neighbourhood. Need more? Make it heavier."

My comment >>>
I have read that statement several times and it makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

I suggest that you brush up on conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, potential energy, kinetic energy, losses due to friction and the like.

As with most things in life....and as is the case here.... You don't get something for nothing.

Ed

8. ### SentallyMember

Joined:
Sep 2015
Posts:
6
0
One day man will connect his apparatus to the very wheelwork of the universe [...] and the very forces that motivate the planets in their orbits and cause them to rotate will rotate his own machinery.
Nicolas Tesla

9. ### DanaWell-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 2010
Posts:
342
3
Tesla was a genius, but he was also crazy as a loon... and even geniuses make mistakes.

10. ### SentallyMember

Joined:
Sep 2015
Posts:
6
0
This is about preserving human knowledge. The way you react does not surprise me.

11. ### Paul TWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
232
0
Sentally, don't let this lot drag your spirit down. They haven't evolved yet!

Tesla knew very well of asymmetrical systems or he wouldn't have been able to make his mechanical earthquake machine.

Tesla didn't pursue gravity machines because he knew of an even better energy source and how to distribute it. Radiant Energy.

Don't know if you'll be able to read this but another of Tesla's inventions that never made it public!

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/17/28/55/62/teslan11.jpg