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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

page: 6
55
share:

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:19 AM

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

Actually, that isn't quite correct. Unless the inventor has found a way to make zero friction bearings, and runs it in a vacuum to eliminate wind resistance, it will take slightly more energy to raise them than was harvested when they dropped.

In reality, it is theoretically possible to make a perpetual motion machine. Notice that I said MOTION not free power. What is required is to eliminate any and all types of drag and/or friction from the system. If a totally friction free machine can be built then the input energy will allow it to continue to run, in theory, forever. But the second you try to take energy from the device you will start slowing it down until it stops moving. There is a desktop toy device that works on that principle. A small top is magnetically levitated and when spun will rotate for a very long time. But air drag will eventually slow it down to a stop.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by DaRAGE

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.

How is it not perpetual motion? Once it starts going it shouldn't stop.... unless you somehow know that gravity is going to suddenly disappear on us?

I take it you did not do physics at school
what will slow this down friction,it's own mass and if hooked up to a generator that will cause more load for it to work against so it will not work.

The only way it can generate energy is for part of the machine to move under gravity then for that to generate energy again it has to return to it's previous position which means it has to be moved back against gravity

Now can you see the problem

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:29 AM

More to the point what happened with yours !!!!

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:36 AM

I more shocked that anyone thinks it can work basic physics tells you it can't NO machine is 100% efficient.

At least it will have a scrap value!

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:36 AM

See, here is the disagreement.

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. If I get that, then I have two different calculations that agree and the matter is settled. If I do not (and I repeat, there is a configuration in which I do not), then I have a dilemma. One of those equations is wrong!

So I have the following possibilities:
1. I have incorrectly calculated the torque, or incorrectly integrated.
2. I have incorrectly calculated the energy (difficult to miss that one).
3. The torque equations are incorrect so far as we understand forces.
4. The energy equations are incorrect so far as we understand them.

Obviously the most probable is the first, so my first step is to recheck my calculations. But after a certain point, one has to accept that the calculations are correct. The next most probable is the second, but that is actually difficult to get wrong. So we are left with the last two possibilities. Which one is it?

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. That discovery is one example of critical thinking in action. Einstein was hounded by non-critical thinking adversaries when he first proposed the idea of Relativity.

I, sir, am a critical thinker. I have the background and education to understand and utilize mathematical problems, but I also have the ability to understand that science evolves with our understanding of physics. Have I made the statement that this motor will work? No. I cannot honestly do so. But I also cannot make the statement that it will not work. All I can say is that if it does, it appears it would violate Conservation of Energy.

Have you done a thorough analysis of the forces involved? No, obviously, because you just informed me that you skipped the torque calculations. Have you built one? If so, please let me and others know; it would be a great time-saver. Without either of those two actions, you, yourself, cannot state with certainty that it cannot work.

I am analyzing; you are opining.

You may be right. I will be sure to be right.

TheRedneck

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:41 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)

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.

No, it's not going to work (and I wonder if the photos are from some other project.) We don't have friction free materials (the joints would have to be made out of friction-free materials so that the energy isn't converted into heat) and there's no evidence that the company has developed any. (see 'Antifriction materials' at this link)

If it was friction free and perfectly balanced, a kitten could make it rotate by batting the lever. I think that the soybean company that bought this machine (Incobrasa) is going to be very angry when they get their electric bill.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

More to the point what happened with yours !!!!

No, not at all, or I would not have posted this now would I?

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:44 AM

If my engineering science teacher 30+ years ago was correct the most efficient machines man had built were large electricity transformers used at power stations they are 90% + efficient but have NO moving parts that's the problem this can't work because it will loose energy at EVERY point of the mechanism

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:45 AM

So what has happened re your water powered machine then

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:47 AM

I did mention it near the beginning of this thread, and last time on the thread when you asked, nothing changed, but I'm still here.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Rocker2013
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.

Good point.

Having said all of that, I still have not seen an example of gravitational force being converted into usable electrical energy.

Well it's possible. Just make a rotor, wind a cable or a chain around the rotor, put a weight in the end of that chain, put a copper coil on the rotor, and put magnets on a stator around the rotor. Let the weight drop: the rotor turns faster and faster, which makes the copper coil turn in the magnetic field, thus providing electrical current.
edit on 20-5-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

See, here is the disagreement.

Have I made the statement that this motor will work? No. I cannot honestly do so. But I also cannot make the statement that it will not work. All I can say is that if it does, it appears it would violate Conservation of Energy.

Have you done a thorough analysis of the forces involved? No, obviously, because you just informed me that you skipped the torque calculations. Have you built one? If so, please let me and others know; it would be a great time-saver. Without either of those two actions, you, yourself, cannot state with certainty that it cannot work.

Sure I can: the known coefficient of friction of current materials.

What's needed to make it work is the complete absence of friction in the materials. However, no one has ever made a frictionless surface (yet.) The first company to make one successfully will hit the international news and make a big splash in the stock market because they will make a gazillion dollars off their invention (more than could be earned by a single "perpetual motion" device.)

Low friction materials are very profitable. Teflon is one of the products with the lowest coefficients of friction, but there's no evidence that they're using huge amounts of teflon in those arms. You could try floating all the joints using magnets, but then you also have the tiny (but real) drag of the air which would slow things over time.

So... a machine operating in a hard vacuum that is kept at a stable, consistent temperature, with magnetic joints (repelling each other so that the joints "float")... might possibly work. The one pictured doesn't seem to match that.

So, yes. You can easily say it's not going to work.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:04 AM
I know this might sound cheesy but I thought of that idea years a go...I even recently mentioned it on ATS....I got the inspiration from a toy crane I had as a child with a glass stomach half full of water that could make perpetual movement of bowing and drinking water up and down.And I thought of gravity as a source of power and imagined at a bigger scale and with some improvements that toy could be used as some energy producing gadget....The only problem is considering it's size it makes very little energy but it is a start....God I could have been rich ,maybe I still can,my idea is a little different than the Brazil's.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:08 AM
Getting something like excess energy from a falling object and stil raising it back to origonal height sounds mathematically a wash out.
The bearing surfaces alone in a machine this size are going to create drag.....
I cannot see in my head.....taking 30 kw off this machine thingy, and still keeping a perpetual rotation going
that has enough speed to keep up to the power drain....
maybe i missed something in physics class?

Now if one adds magnetic counter weights to the EQ maybe?
Perhaps electro magnets....

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:27 AM
You know what uses gravity to produce energy? A hydroelectric dam. It's actually solar powered. Think about it.

This OP "machine" is not even close to free energy, perpetual energy, perpetual motion, or perpetual anything except perpetual fake. It's a total scam. A complete farce. Another attempt to rob someone of money. Apparently, fooling people is a lucrative business.

"Impossible?" well certain things actually ARE impossible with the current set of physical laws that have been in place for centuries. Quantum physics is changing things up a bit, but this machine is FAR FAR FAR from a quantum physics device. It's more like quantum robbery.

Furthermore, I can't believe the percentage of people that fall for this stuff. Read a physics book or at least use some common sense. I appreciate that people want to see the "impossible" happen, but this is not it. Wait and see if you wish. I already know the outcome.
edit on 20-5-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:30 AM
Want free energy? make a water mill.

This design will not work. it is akin to the cat with buttered toast strapped to its back to make anti-gravity. Its nonsense and without any scientific merit.

Why is this thread still being discussed is beyond me. Any friction = denial of perpetual motion and falls right in with the first law of thermodynamics. This machine is either taken out of context, or someone is out of a lot of money for a gag.
Should have spent the money and built a hydroplant or solar array if free energy is the desire. perpetual motion? heh...while your at it, build me a tardis.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by zayonara
"Impossible?" well certain things actually ARE impossible with the current set of physical laws that have been in place for centuries. Quantum physics is changing things up a bit, but this machine is FAR FAR FAR from a quantum physics device. It's more like quantum robbery.

Perpetual motion is one of the very few things that is stated is impossible by academia. Bold claim (and no doubt the motivation for generations of garage inventors to try and defeat...unsuccessfully).

They always forget about the friction.

-shakes fist at the cold stone face of science "Damn You, Science!!! You win again!"

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:36 AM

Your science teacher was right, as far as I know.

You are also correct in the statements about friction occurring at every part of not just this, but any machine. Your calculations are based on an initial energy level of 100%, meaning any decrease in energy slows the machine. We are discussing the possibility of starting with 120% or thereabouts. In that case, it is possible to continue operation with frictional forces.

The question is whether such a starting point is possible, and whether or not this contraption achieves it.

TheRedneck

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:22 PM
I'm going to go ahead and call bullsnip on this one.

The site just shows some people in south america building a metal structure.

The site contains to real evidence of any real gravity based perpetual energy machine.

And seriously don't you think they'd have an english version if it were real.

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:35 PM
So because this guy is from my country I did a little digging.

So far what I could gather is that he is a rich and a hermit guy and other words is he isn't a hoax.

He has a company in the USA - www.incobrasa.com...
patents : www.patentmaps.com...

That doesn't mean the invention will works but at least he putting his money to try prove it.
edit on 20/5/13 by blackcube because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/5/13 by blackcube because: (no reason given)

new topics

55