Gravity Engine now in the USA.

I wish all the best to the inventor.

However we must remember that energy is not a problem on this planet.

There is almost 1KW of sun's energy falling per square meter. That means a peak of 100KW on the roof of my house. Even if I take a 24hour average, it is at least 10KW for 100 square meter which is more than my requirement.

The solar panels need to evolve to a level where the panel can convert 15-20% of sunlight into electricity. This is possible. This along with a world-wide power grid (where electric current can be transferred from one region to the other) and free trade in electricity will solve the world's energy need effectively.

The grid can use other type of generating stations like natural gas, coal, hydro, wind etc. in addition to solar, so that sources of energy are diversified.

We need to get off oil and get on electricity. The solution to our problems is electricity.

We need to focus on conservation of energy, remove waste of energy by curtailing personal transportation and building smaller houses. We need to build cluster of multi-storey housing connected with public transport, rather than houses spread over in urban sprawl. Our energy problem is directly linked to our defective planning and bad use of our land resources.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Not my opinion, just look at it.

and you formed an opinion.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
You have looked at it, haven't you?

I'm sure you can do better than that.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
You think those drive shafts are cheap?
They're machined billet steel, as are several other components.
Expensive.
FACT.

IS IT YOUR MONEY!!!

Judging by the effort your putting into this thread trying to convince us this machine is too expensive, well, I'll be expecting to see you camped outside the whitehouse with your protest board because they spend TRILLIONS designing the most evil weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people. Will you be there? or is it just this machine thats too expensive?

reply to post by GargIndia

The solar panels need to evolve to a level where the panel can convert 15-20% of sunlight into electricity. This is possible.

This is more than possible...15 - 20% efficiency is a long forgotten milestone. The latest advances in Solar energy gathering is more than double that figure.

Sharp makes a compound triple junction concentrator cell that is a whopping 44.4% efficient at converting sunlight into electrical energy..which means at the moment (advances are ongoing) a 1sq meter panel of these cells can generate around 440 watts of electricity (assuming a peak of 1000 watts of solar energy potential per square meter).

Sharp Corporation has achieved the world's highest solar cell conversion efficiency*2 of 44.4%, using a concentrator triple-junction compound solar cell. These solar cells are used in a lens-based concentrator system that focuses sunlight on the cells to generate electricity.

Sharp C.T.J. Solar cell

Imagine a sea based, floating flat platform, such as a string of large barges anchored in position...even a 1km x 1km area could provide as much as 440 megawatts...that's just 1000m x 1000m of area..tiny space. The sea and coastal areas could be our new power stations, and biofuels / agriculture (using desalinated sea water hydroponically) production centers...all that is required is that useless money.

reply to post by VoidHawk


You're missing the point obviously.

Why make something if its not competitive?

That is what buyers will do with this if it works, they will compare it with other generators and weigh up pros vs cons.

Your weapons example is a poor straw an argument and I wonder why you defend something you clearly don't even understand?

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Expensive yes, but also lasts a lot longer than the cheap throw away methods we seem to embrace now. Cheap rarely lasts long, just look at cars. 15 years ago I could go to a junkyard, buy a "junked car" dirt cheap, restore it to working condition in my garage. Can't do that with modern cars, and I believe that was done on purpose. To get us to toss away our cars every five years and buy another, rather than keep a car working, and pass it on to our kids.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

You're missing the point obviously.
Why make something if its not competitive?

Why does it have to be competitive?
If this machine works we could all bury a small version in our gardens. It would need NO fuel and being so well engineered it would run for a life time.
I think thats VERY competitive, dont you?

reply to post by TKDRL


Yes it is a deliberate thing, called planned obsolescence.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

You're missing the point obviously.

Why make something if its not competitive?

That is what buyers will do with this if it works, they will compare it with other generators and weigh up pros vs cons.

Your weapons example is a poor straw an argument and I wonder why you defend something you clearly don't even understand?

You're forgetting one simple Human trait...altruism.

Not everyone does things for their brothers and sisters for what they are going to get in return, some do good things simply because they are good people.

If we are to believe Western governments and corporations when they jump up and down, frothing at the bit while justifying their carbon taxes, punitive taxes on energy and energy tariffs, rising automotive fuel prices and all the rest of associated 'global warming' money spinners, protecting the environment and all life on this planet would naturally come before short term financial gain or loss...would it not?

After all, if the Earth is rapidly becoming a dead planet, devoid of life due to pollution and GW...and of course also devoid of customers and opportunities for oligarchs to spend money, the profit angle becomes a little more than moot doesn't it?

Unless it's smaller than a refrigerator and costs about the same price, this is almost a useless invention.

Why I think it's useless is because no matter how free, great and/or amazing the invention, if everyday consumers can't pick one up, or build one to fit into there home the big corporations will just use the power grid to charge them the same amount of money.

If it can be metered, and distributed through controlled outlets then it's not really free.

Wind is free,

Petroleum is free.

Solar is free.

Hydro-power is free.

But the average person person can't come up with an affordable unit to run their needs currently, but solar is getting pretty close.

reply to post by MysterX


Don't think it's a matter of doing what's right, although choosing to use alternative energy in itself disproves an altruistic mindset.

It's simple economics.

Why buy a huge expensive free energy device when I can buy something smaller, cheaper and equally free?

Originally posted by VoidHawk

If this machine works we could all bury a small version in our gardens. It would need NO fuel

and being so well engineered it would run for a life time.
I think thats VERY competitive, dont you?

Those are the key words right there 'if it works' and, although I have a lot of reasons to believe it won't, I'm still prepared to see it proven or fail in actual testing. That's despite the fact that it looks like an overly complex flywheel arrangement for very short term energy storage which could be done for far less than this monstrosity has to be costing.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Its NOT an energy storage device. As far as being overly complex, well who cares so long as it works?

I know its a big IF, but if it does work then it could be improved, worked on by great minds, scaled down and made more efficient.

I'm amazed at the responses in this thread, it's like you people dont want it to work. I wonder why?

very interesting. if i am not mistaken, something similar was built in Europe in the 30,s but was ridiculed and eventually forgotten

reply to post by VoidHawk


I would very much like to see it work. I just cannot see how, even if the machine were 100% efficient, the force that causes the down stoke to fall (gravity) will be greater than the force working against the upstroke. Gravity will apply an equal force to both the upstroke and the down stoke therefore there is to available energy to withdraw from the cycle. Explaining how gravity can apply less force to the upstroke than the down stroke would be the only believable explanation of how this could work.

reply to post by VoidHawk


If it isn't an energy storage device, would you then care to explain, in your words, how this is supposed to work?

I can tell you now though, just by looking at it, that if it is supposed to harness gravity to make all those different parts move, then it will eventually grind to a halt even if it "works" at first. Unless, of course, the designers have also managed to remove ALL friction, which itself is an almost impossible task.

reply to post by VoidHawk
An alleged massive perpetual motion machine?

No magnets?

No coils?

How does it generate electricity?

We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933.

No videos? WHY?

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

I would very much like to see it work. I just cannot see how, even if the machine were 100% efficient, the force that causes the down stoke to fall (gravity) will be greater than the force working against the upstroke. Gravity will apply an equal force to both the upstroke and the down stoke therefore there is to available energy to withdraw from the cycle. Explaining how gravity can apply less force to the upstroke than the down stroke would be the only believable explanation of how this could work.

The previous gravity engines I've seen use flawed concepts involving leverage.

This is a simple model from Wikipedia that is very old:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes gravity pulls on all the balls equally, but the torque resulting from the gravitational pull on each individual ball on the right side is greater (this much is actually true), which some people thought would apply a net clockwise torque, causing rotation.

The previous designs have indicated that there is always some effect that people failed to consider which renders the device inoperable, which of course is the case with this imbalanced torque wheel design and will prove to be the case with the topic of this thread.

reply to post by GargIndia


This is a great idea! It seems very similar to this one...I'm still trying to figure out why we haven't put this one into full blown use.

Oceans Perpetual Motion Converted into Energy

reply to post by boncho


No I was not, Just interesting. One would assume the price tag would lead people to do their due diligence. Not necessarily saying that makes it a 100% certainty.

Just pointing out this isnt a tinfoil mockup of an S.E.G

Originally posted by QuietSpeech
This is a great idea! It seems very similar to this one...I'm still trying to figure out why we haven't put this one into full blown use.

Oceans Perpetual Motion Converted into Energy

Yes but it's not really "perpetual" because the Earth's rotation is slowing down. Still it's a pretty good source of energy, like the wind, but it has some problems in common with harnessing wind energy, like capital costs, maintenance costs, efficiency, etc.

Also, the reason it works is because it uses a CHANGING gravitational field, which is something that can produce energy. There's no evidence that the device in the OP attempts to use a changing gravitational field so it's a different concept.