Free energy machine powered by gravity. BRAZIL

The fact this model has been built so large scale already..indicates they have tested smaller models so they must know the concept works,.there is no way someone would spend $$$ on a model that size unless they had proof of concept...people forget that a water wheel is a gravity driven engine...and of course it loses energy to friction but so what if it lasts 50 or 100 years.
Of course I don't speak Portuguese, so this invention could be anything and have nothing to do with free energy...

in reply to the post with the 20 minute video of the guy with the wooden turning thing, with four arms, and a counterbalance arm on one arm.

it's not perpetual - if you look at the start and the end of the video, and time the rotations, you'll find at the end it's slightly slower - in just 20 minutes, that's actually quite good, but it won't go 'forever', and if you try to generate from it, you'll just slow it down quicker.

reply to post by CrastneyJPR


I know it's a pretty poor example, and is not Perpetual motion, I was just using the video to show how the movement of the weight causes it to turn.

I don't think the weights are added yet, in the machine in the op, and in the last pictures of the machine you can see more.... Yes more! Steels lined up ready to be assembled.

reply to post by blackcube


You are right, I have no basis for calling this, or him a hoax. My bad. What is life, if you can't dream anyway. He may have a dream. That doesn't mean it's going to work. In fact, it's not.

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.

This system has way too many moving parts. It has high maintenance cost and probably isn't even perpetual motion. There is thing called friction. It probably runs, but needs more energy than it produces.

reply to post by TheRedneck


The most efficient machine made (with moving parts) is a bicycle that is only 80% efficient so this super efficient machine in the op needs 120% to start, some simple maths for you even if it were as good as a bike

120x80% = 96 next rotation 96x80% = 76.8 etc etc.

People on here that believe this nonsense forget all the energy taken from a machine we cant get rid of friction so some energy is converted to heat some to sound and some is lost to drag ( air resistance) we will not get rid of friction on this machine its not in a vacuum also as soon as it's connected to a generator or anything else say to drive another machine THAT will have the same issues it's that simple!

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by CrastneyJPR

 

I know it's a pretty poor example, and is not Perpetual motion, I was just using the video to show how the movement of the weight causes it to turn.

I don't think the weights are added yet, in the machine in the op, and in the last pictures of the machine you can see more.... Yes more! Steels lined up ready to be assembled.

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

The machine shown in that video is a joke it would have no torque to turn anything that's the problem with all these contraptions you guys get so excited you can't see it generates no real amount of force are you that blind to the obvious, oh and before you suggest it just has to be bigger all the other issues get bigger as well! more mass to move , more friction etc.

Originally posted by litterbaux
Even if this machine works it will only be a matter of time before the energy giants either pay him to turn the machine into scrap metal or kill him outright.

There is too much money to be made selling energy the traditional way.

For example, there are plans out there harnessing the energy of ocean waves. Buoy's float on the surface and pull underwater panels up and down driving a shaft. Why aren't these systems being installed? Oh that's right, the companies providing energy already have a monopoly on your energy service, they will do whatever possible to stop you from impeding on their profits and/or power.

This is the world we live in.

If it is just a bunch of levers, a crank-shaft and some scaffolding, then it really isn't much more that an elaborate art exhibit.

Like the story of the guy who built and powered a infinite energy systems using a tractor engine to provide the initial energy. The system accumulated so much energy that it shot off up into the sky and was never seen again. Unfortunately, he never kept written designs so was unable to replicate the system

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!

If its working on gravity there isn't a hope in hell of that thing running by itself...this person obviously has loads of money, cant imagine how much that thing cost to build!

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by litterbaux
Even if this machine works it will only be a matter of time before the energy giants either pay him to turn the machine into scrap metal or kill him outright.

This is the world we live in.

Actually, I could more imagine the energy giants buying the tech (assuming that he got it to work) and finding a way to charge us more for the electricity it produces that the energy we are supplied with now.
i.e look at wind generated electricity - it is generated for free but we are asked to pay more for it (here in Australia anyway) based on the grounds that it is 'green' energy.

Wrong, wind generators are HIGH maintenance, much more so than originally thought. It is much more expensive to produce energy through wind energy as it stands than through traditional means.

Jaden

reply to post by LUXUS


They apparently built small models during this things' development, at least one other machine, though i suspect through the stages of developing it, there are more.

I agree it seems a lot of expense and effort to go to if you didn't think the design worked. I don't know of many engineers that would build this and claim what they have about it in the S. and N. American media, without testing with scaled down or model sized devices, as proof of concept to the world.

They must've got their own proof of concept moment spurring them on to build this large demonstrator version.

Good luck to them.

Are the selling shares in this thing yet?
Maybe that would indicate whether they were scamming or not......
With use of switched electromagnets,(the energy procided by gravity) i mean, perhaps with creative switching of intense magnets, xcited further by a spark,(perhaps provided by a capacitor?
or some other creative alternate,
could the damn thing run roughneck?

reply to post by Byrd

This post addresses your concern as well. I am quite familiar with frictional forces and the various materials used to minimize (not eliminate) them.


reply to post by blackcube

Impressive!

I looked over the list, but I saw nothing that sounded applicable to this project. If he has not applied for a patent, it can not be patented; the photos place it in public domain.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Oannes

The U.S. Patent Office does not require prototypes for a patent, save for devices which are "over-unity". These can require an operational prototype upon demand from the Patent Office. They are still patentable if they are not public domain or already patented.

The only reason for this was an excessive number of patents being applied for that obviously didn't work. The workload was holding up serious patents.


reply to post by wmd_2008

You, sir, have talent! I couldn't have missed my point better if I had a year to practice and springs on my heels.

TheRedneck

I have finished my analysis... it didn't work. The forces summed to zero.

I have, however, looked over the photos again, and noticed something I had missed in the design. The last photo shows the triangular frame, which I had originally assumed was simply a static hanger for weights, as not being solidly attached to the vertical movable columns. Instead, you can see it has been forced backward along the hinge point at the bottom of the column. This adds a whole new new dimension to the operation; not only does it add an eccentric load that is apparently being passed back to the connecting arms, but it also makes the equations piecewise. So I still cannot say whether it will work or not.

Not knowing the exact design specs used, I'm not sure I can replicate it without a good deal of trial and error, either. There is an almost infinite number of possibilities on how this was designed to work.

I am still hopeful. The position of the columns make a warped sine wave along the length of the machine. Peaks are higher and of shorter duration than the troughs. This is the same type of motion I had designed so many years ago.

I do plan on keeping the idea alive. Maybe I can figure out their equations from the pics shown and build one for myself. Someone placed a tremendous amount of money into building this and I saw no request for investors or even a mention of such. Either this guy has stumbled onto something truly amazing, or he is completely mad. So I withhold judgement... time will decide which.

It would be nice to have one running in the back yard, though, even if all it did was spin on its own.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by LUXUS

 

They apparently built small models during this things' development, at least one other machine, though i suspect through the stages of developing it, there are more.

Where did you get that info from? The video that I saw the guy says he specifically asked if there was a working model or video anywhere of this thing working and they gave him a flat "no"

I would so love to be proven wrong and see this thing actually work, but I just don't see how all his flappy weight things are going to provide the torque and inertia to keep it moving indefinitely let alone to power a generator at the end of the shaft.

The designer is basically trying to create a self reloading gravity free fall cascade in the height of a few metres and is hoping for energy to spare. Tough order and one that would have my total respect and amazement if he could pull it off without any energy input other than that initially required to get it moving.

For all the believers in this idea, I riddle you this;

How do you take a set of scales like the ones below, add equal weight to both sides and keep them moving up and down with no additional energy input? This is the problem this design has to overcome in it's simplest form.

Interesting...

One way to harness gravity would be to have stores temporarily loaded onto the armature which are then unloaded when they reach the bottom. But that's not really different than how hydro power works, just a different design implementation. Seems like a cheat, but could be useful for storing energy along with whatever dry good you're keeping contained. Not really "free" energy (would come from the trucks loading whatever at a higher elevation than when it's unloaded), but such a system may have its uses for powering off-grid locations.

But from the way TheRedneck was talking about how it works in an earlier post is that it sounds like you have a lever arm with a belt or chain going around it. When the weight gets pulled up it's on the shortest length of the lever arm and being pulled more by the chain or belt. When let back down however, it's at the longest extension of the lever arm and the whole lever arm goes down taking advantage of the torque. The main gist idea thus is to have the load on the longest part of a lever moment on the downstroke and the shortest on the upstroke. I'm still not sure if that would get more energy than what you'd lose to friction, the uphill trip of the freeweight pivot back over the lever, etc. (I may be able to make a rough animated .gif that comes close to the concept of operation if anyone didn't understand what was described.) Also you have to keep in mind that as the weight is being lowered at the end of the pivot arm, thus it's constrained to that pivot and going down in an arc rather than a straight line. Now if somebody can proove that it's taking a longer trip being lowered in a sweeping arc on the way down than ramp trip back up the other side...

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