It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 5
56
share:

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:00 AM

I can see why people think this won't work looking at it as a perpetual motion machine, and even a gravity motor, but I can see a way it might work and am curious to see how they go about finishing the machine to see if I'm right.

I think a previous poster has spotted the same thing, I'll try to explaine. You only add power to turn the first arm, the mechanics weights and momentum will cause all other arms to follow in a wave like fashion, (similar to the contraption in the second video)

There are lots of arms, all creating energy, will the power used turning the first arm be greater that what is harnessed from all the others? Once it makes one revoltution you can switch it to power itself.

That's the only way I can see it working, and I can't see why it won't.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:01 AM

A static analysis will provide an algebraic equation for torque at a specified angle of rotation. That equation can then be integrated for one segment from -pi to pi to give a summation of total torque during a full revolution.

This is not my first analysis.

BTW, what was the result of your analysis? What assumptions did you use? I am using a control arm angle of zero at the midpoint of rotation.

TheRedneck

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

BTW, what was the result of your analysis? What assumptions did you use? I am using a control arm angle of zero at the midpoint of rotation.

TheRedneck

Integrated over one rotation, you'll get zero net output. To get all the terms, you'd need a much better image, but it'll still be zero.

Nothing's going to get that to come out asymmetric in rotation, unless you assume the system is changing dynamically, that is, you're dropping off parts of it as you go. That would be cheating, since the thing would quickly run out of parts.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Wifibrains

I think a previous poster has spotted the same thing, I'll try to explaine. You only add power to turn the first arm, the mechanics weights and momentum will cause all other arms to follow in a wave like fashion, (similar to the contraption in the second video)

And it'll take just as much energy to lift the arms back to the starting position as you got from them dropping.

Changed from the neat wheels and arms mode that's there to obfuscate what's happening, consider a cliff that slopes on one side, and some balls. The energy of a ball falling from the steep side of the cliff is equal to that required to push a ball back to the top of the cliff up the slope. Unless you can make one side give more energy, or the other require less, there will be no net gain. Because e=mgh, and there's no term there that will make that asymmetric in h.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:19 AM

You're much faster than I am. We'll see if my figures agree.

TheRedneck

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:23 AM

The energy of a ball falling from the steep side of the cliff is equal to that required to push a ball back to the top of the cliff up the slope. Unless you can make one side give more energy, or the other require less, there will be no net gain. Because e=mgh, and there's no term there that will make that asymmetric in h.

I comprehend that, buy who says the weights are being lifted? it takes less energy to keep something swinging than it does to start it swinging because of gravity works with you half the time as opposed to against you all the time.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Wifibrains

I comprehend that, buy who says the weights are being lifted? it takes less energy to keep something swinging than it does to start it swinging because of gravity works with you half the time as opposed to against you all the time.

How do you propose the thing complete a cycle? Unless the weights get to the bottom, detach, and fall off. That would work, briefly.

As far as swinging, you will get as much on the way down as you get on the way up...and there's the crux of the problem. You don't get more on the way down, which you need for this to work at all.

Even swinging, the weights are being lifted. They are changing height, and that's lift, if they're on a wheel or being lifted straight up. Either way, they have to be lifted to complete a cycle and return to the starting point.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

You're much faster than I am. We'll see if my figures agree.

TheRedneck

You can skip the integration in torque and go for an energy analysis instead. It's faster. E=mgh for all the parts at their inflection points in the cycle, the sum of which will be zero also.

eta: you can tell if you got your torque integration right by checking against the energy - if it doesn't equal mgh, you missed something.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:41 AM

How do you propose the thing complete a cycle? Unless the weights get to the bottom, detach, and fall off. That would work, briefly.

With a motor on the first arm.

Keeping momentum will take less energy that it did to start it as you would be "lifting" it from zero to start it. The momentum of the swing after one revoloution will not take it all the way back but you won't be pushing from zero just adding the little extra, gravity does not work entirely against you with the swing as momentum plays its role.

Im not saying it will definitely work, but you pretty sure it won't.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:48 AM

This is really a nice find. I'm not a big fan of gravity-based electricity generators (what if the machine shifts? What if you try using it on the Moon?) but maybe this machine could give a clue as to how to use magnetic fields to achieve the same idea.

I've tried coming up with such gravity-powered perpetual motion stuff but friction was in the way, and there was no usable energy excess, even on paper it showed. I hope this guy in your OP could prove me wrong.

Nice find! S&F

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by boncho
Simple read the definitions of the word.

Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2]

Free energy device, a hypothetical perpetual motion device that creates energy, thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
And to be honest, in most of its functions, it's quite a useless word. Misleading at best, outright fibbing at worst.

Respectfully... we all know that perpetual motion without any source of energy is by definition impossible. I think by "free" the OP simply meant that it uses potential energy which is technically located everywhere in the universe (a g field can never reach absolute zero, no matter the distance, it's inverse squared), and, thus, closely behave as if it is truly free.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Wifibrains
gravity does not work entirely against you with the swing as momentum plays its role.

The reason why two balls (let's say a 100 kg and a 1 kg) fall at the same speed (here assuming there is no air resistance) is because sure, gravity acts more effectively on the 100 kg ball than the 1 kg one. But, the 100 kg has all that resistance to movement in the first place, thus resists more acceleration than the 1 kg ball. Thus, the result is that both ball fall at the same exact speed.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:37 AM
Ureaka! I have solves the perpetual motion question. Run a teher to the moon and use the difference between the eaths rotation and the moons orbital velocity to power whatever. Of course this would only work at the poles and it would not really be perpetual because the drag would eventually cause the speeds to match. However
Is it possible the this gravity machine uses tidal forces?

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:41 AM
Looks like yet another version of the gravity wheel that's been fooling investors for at least 500 years. The cool thing is it looks good on paper and even when it has been constructed but it has never ever worked because of the basic principles of conservation of energy which hadn't even been written down when the first versions of the machine were proposed and such proposals have sucked in some very high profile investors over the centuries. I doubt this the last such unsuccessful invention.

What to look for if you think you have come up with a working device: if it actually produces energy in excess of what it takes to get it moving it will need some sort of governor system to prevent it accelerating to destruction when unloaded. It will need a brake to hold it at standstill.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by TinkerTerry
Is it possible the this gravity machine uses tidal forces?

These already exist. They use a buoy with a tether so each times the tide rises it pulls the tether and turns a generator.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:42 AM
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.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:50 AM

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.

I doubt you'd be in any danger. One day the big fuel corporations will simply get obsolete, and this "free" (I say "free" and not free, because some folks around here argue that using g force to power a machine can't be considered free) devices will evolve, and then the Big Free Energy Corporations will control our energy instead of the Big Fossil Fuel Corporations. They'll evolve their strategy.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by swanne
Respectfully... we all know that perpetual motion without any source of energy is by definition impossible.

With respect, I think using the word "impossible" is nonsense, because less than a century ago the idea of us communicating in the way that we are right now would have been described as impossible. The notion of two particles acting identically across distances when one is affected by outside force would have been called impossible not too long ago too. The notion of converting wind, tidal and solar energy into usable power would also have been considered impossible depending how far back you go...

The biggest problem I have with some of the most incredible geniuses on the planet throughout history is that despite their obvious genius, they still didn't understand that there is no such thing as "rules" and "impossible".

Just using logic, intelligence and our own history, these enlightened minds should have come to the plausible conclusion that there are no limits outside of Human understanding and capacity - anything is possible, and rules are made to be broken.

Having said all of that, I still have not seen an example of gravitational force being converted into usable electrical energy. It seems logical that there must be a way to do it, after all we can convert solar energy, tidal and wind into power, so why can't we do the same with gravity? It is a natural force like any other, and although it might not be considered in the same group of energy producing processes it seems perfectly reasonable that there SHOULD be a way to harness it.

But, these methods only show me how to convert gravitational energy into a reverse movement, and this is not seemingly able to be harnessed for use, without it being destroyed - meaning that the energy put into it is taken out, but no more is produced.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:54 AM

Sure, tell that to the countless folks that have been ruined, arrested, or killed for such pursuits throughout the modern era. I'd still keep it to myself for a time.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok

Sure, tell that to the countless folks that have been ruined, arrested, or killed for such pursuits throughout the modern era.

Don't get me wrong, I know this has happened in the past and to some extend in the present. But there are so many people now, even big media, big TV shows and big science networks who attacks Fossil Fuel Corporations... These Corporation are doomed to evolve their strategy. Too much people come up with alternatives, and the Corps are being overwhelmed.

edit on 20-5-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

56