Free energy machine powered by gravity. BRAZIL

Originally posted by Renan
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.

edit on 21-5-2013 by Renan because: (no reason given)

Hi Renan, good to see a fellow brazilian around!
Great idea to check it out. Why don't you take some pre made questions with you and ask him to answer?
One thing is certain: true of not the bloke has already spent big money on this.
Good luck

reply to post by C0bzz

I agree to disagree. Easy does not always equal better.

It does explain why things seem to break easier today than they did 30 years ago...

TheRedneck

Just thought id make people aware, Two new pictures have been added to the site, for those that are interested in the design and how it may function, keep checking back every couple of days.

reply to post by Wifibrains


it certainly deserves some sort of award for complexity

here is a rough aproximation of the schematic for one ` element ` :



key :

pink - the fixed chassis

black circles = bearings / pivots

red = a ridgid subassambley [ appologies - i used red for 2 seperate structures

all other colours [ blue / greem / yellow ] are independant moving assemblies / connecting rods

NB - there appears to be range of motion limits between the top red assy. and the both the yellow and right hand blue connecting rod - but with only pics to go on - its hard to determine its exact nature

i will update as it mutates

so far - its got 13 points of friction for each element - with i assume - more to be added

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Good job.

In the photo of the machine the rod hanging down looks like it might reach to near the bottom of the circular track. If you look closely you can see holes to another pin in the end of the Steel. I think the circular track in your diagram needs to be bigger. It should go almost to the top of the red triangle section to around halfway down the bottom rod....And they still are not using those steels lined up on the floor at the back yet.

There is a difference between free energy and perpetual motion.
I believe the force of gravity can be turned into free energy, just as with the example of a water wheel. The water wheel continually rotates and continually loses energy due to friction, which eventually leads to parts wearing out, but the water wheel powered factories and industry for a long period, for free, why modern people, especially scientists cant accept we have done this before is beyond me. Another important thing to remember is that the water powering the wheel is continually flowing, due to gravity. The water in the river is in perpetual motion, powered by gravity. So yes we have already demonstared in our history that gravity can be used to continually power factories and industry etc. hydro electric dams work the same way, powered by gravity.

It is beyond ignorant to say we cannot build gravity driven engines, we have done it before and had great success with them.... like all machines they of course lose energy to friction..but so what. if you dont need to put in petrol or burn coal or use nuclear fuel...then who cares if they fall apart eventually, everything falls apart eventually.

and its this mentality that has hampered gravity driven engines. You propose a design for one and people, especially scientist balk and call it a perpetual motion machine..and it wont work due to friction...blah, blah, blah...like i said water wheels work for years, providing free energy, so what if they eventually fall apart or need maintenance. This is the main reason given into not pursuing free energy, friction loses, what a joke, how much friction is lost in a car...honestly, but it doesn't stop people buying them or industries building them and that makes a million times less sense.

people have got to stop with this law of thermo dynamics BS. We are not talking about perpetual motion in the literal sense, and Im sure most scientists know full well that is not what is being proposed, but they sling mud at anyone who has a concept for a "gravity driven engine", and as i have stated a water wheel is a gravity driven engine, without gravity the water would not flow...there is no getting around it. Science and industry does not want to go back to using gravity because it is free. It's quite obvious to me. There is no profit in free energy.
I mean please someone tell me, why we are not using water wheels today???? they are a proven clean technology..
See what I mean. Instead we have pathetic wind turbines, that have to be switched off in high winds, for fear of them blowing apart, well that sounds like a really useless waste of time, building all of those white elephants..or was that the idea.

Load of old tosh.

They'll have to re-write physics if this comes off.

Originally posted by TheBlackHat
I mean please someone tell me, why we are not using water wheels today

What makes you think we are not using them?

It is the most widely used form of renewable energy, accounting for 16 percent of global electricity generation – 3,427 terawatt-hours of electricity production in 2010,[1] and is expected to increase about 3.1% each year for the next 25 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

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

Again, you could also go about it the other way, and look at the gravitational potential energy related to the heights of the weights at each inflection point.

It ought to give you the same answer - because THAT'S where the energy would be coming from, unless you think simple rotation is somehow bringing in the energy.

Unfortunately, unless you can make gravitational potential energy asymmetric in h, you will ALSO get the same answer - zero. That's the issue with gravity PMM's. Or magnet ones.

As a yoot, I spent a LOT of time doing mathematical analyses of the classics. This one doesn't have anything new in it.

I once thought I had a magnet motor figured out - you have to introduce some crazy uncoupling to keep the things from hunting a balance point and stalling, but I never got more out than in. I did get really CLOSE to out and in being the same using a shifting shield and a magnetic torque setup. Alas.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

it certainly deserves some sort of award for complexity

That's part of it. If it was really obvious, you would discount it immediately. That's why a lot of these things have all sorts of Rube Goldbergian addons, like a Testatika.

Problem solved here is the missing part to make this thing work.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Science to the rescue ... !!

You really deserve credit for digging that up: I was literally rolling on the floor laughing when I watched that for the first time, a few years back ... I love that clip and I'm glad I'm not the only one!

And let's not forget the memorable closing quote:

It's not cheap, but I'm sure the government will buy it. [Holds up $750,000,000 price tag]

reply to post by jeep3r


Yes I know I was the same when I first saw it, it's cheap at twice the price and has more chance of working than the machine in Brazil

Also that video has less BS in it than the free energy mob believe in

reply to post by hellobruce


Well my bad...water turbines...but im sure we could be using a hell of a lot more of them, rather than the continual building of relativity useless wind turbines.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


do you really need to be told why hydro electric schemes are not more prevelant ?

reply to post by TheRedneck

I agree to disagree. Easy does not always equal better.

It does explain why things seem to break easier today than they did 30 years ago...

TheRedneck

Very well.

Also in the area I am working with right now (electric motors and their respective drive mechanisms), the new machines tend to be more efficient and rugged than the systems they have replaced (i.e. variable frequency, variable magnitude DC-AC converter, powering an induction motor, versus a DC machine with variable armature resistance). I have adopted my reasoning partly because the engineers who have worked and developed these devices have taught me to solve problems simply, rather than use unnecessary methods for the same result. It has also been demonstrated to me when solving problems myself.

reply to post by TheBlackHat

I believe the force of gravity can be turned into free energy

Water wheels are just an indirect way of using solar energy, as the sun will add gravitational potential energy to water when it evaporates and forms weather systems. All you are doing is harvesting that energy. Wind power is similar to this. Solar power is a more direct way of harvesting the energy from the sun. Incidentally, the food you eat it a form of biofuel, which means you are indirectly powered by the sun. Tidal power would just be harvesting the energy from the velocity of the earth / moon.

Hydro power is not "gravity powered". It uses gravitational potential energy, which exists because of the sun. The distinction is very important. In the OP is basically a mechanical shaft with some levers attached to it. It does not get its energy from any source such as gravitational potential energy, or mechanical energy, and certainly not gravity. Which is why it doesn't work. Instead I suppose believers think the energy would just spontaneously appear.

You are trying to say that gravity powered machines are similar to machines which use gravitational potential energy. One exists, one does not. But yes, I suppose both refer to "free energy", one is known as renewable energy, the other is known as nonsense.

Also regarding renewable energy, indeed use wind turbines, and hydroelectric dams. Both are rather good, however dams have their own issues involving water use and land use. Wind turbines that are somewhat economical compared with thermal power stations are a fairly recent development, so they are being implemented, but don't exist in massive numbers yet.

In the past, fossil fuels have been significantly cheaper than renewables (Aside: In the US, building a natural gas power station then burning gas has tended to be cheaper than building a hydro power station - so much for "free energy") which is why they were used instead of renewables, but with more emphasis on the environment and rising fuel costs that may be changing. Also, yes, wind turbines may have to be turned off in some conditions. Sometimes hydroelectric dams collapse due to flooding or earthquakes. Wind turbines are also cheaper than dams.

I agree that devices the use energy found naturally in the environment, like hydroelectric dams, should be implemented when they are the best source of energy.

New photos added 24/5/2013!!

Still having a hard time figuring out what the curved black bars are for, and how they are really attached. Can't wait to see a video of this thing in motion. That will help to explain a lot.

They seem to be moving through this build pretty quickly. Maybe we'll see it running soon. Or maybe not, since they seem to be adding more and more parts that I didn't see coming. Hurry up and build it so we can see what it's supposed to do and if it even works!

reply to post by Heliophant
This project is so interesting!! Can't wait to see results.

reply to post by C0bzz

I have adopted my reasoning partly because the engineers who have worked and developed these devices have taught me to solve problems simply, rather than use unnecessary methods for the same result.

Your lead engineers have done you a service in one respect; you are dealing with well-understood principles that they have already examined and have found no anomalous data. There is no reason to continually analyze such a device from the ground up. Incidentally, if you are doing what I think you are from that brief description, it sounds like a fascinatingly productive endeavor. About a dozen questions popped into my mind when reading your description, but I think that discussion is best left for later. Good luck.

They did you a disservice as well, though. The premise of using quick "shortcut" calculations only works on well-understood phenomena. Gravity itself is not that well understood; here is a recent report from the USGS on the gravitational anomalies detected in the United States.

Measurements of the gravitational field vary slightly from place to place due to the composition and structure of Earth's crust. These digital grids describe the complete Bouguer and isostatic residual gravity anomalies for the conterminous US.

In addition, the oft-bantered-about terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" refer not to actual matter oe energy, but to gravitational anomalies observed in space... areas where motion does not fit with out equations. The former is an apparent increase in gravitational attraction; the latter is a decrease (or opposing force).

In any field where observations defy traditional calculations, it is foolhardy and arrogant to assume that the equations must be accurate. Observation - reality, if you will - is the final authority.

TheRedneck