Gravity Engine now in the USA.

Fairly sure they've had time to sort out the bugs by now (5+ years)

Anyone aware of what the state of this thing is now?

www.google.com... +engine&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.26265.30864..31269...3.0..1.278.1670.6j7j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i362i39j0i131.g68aFEAS148&ved=0ahUKEwj5prOJ-pvmA hXyna0KHUwzCIEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

Lots of old info

a reply to: mikell

Strange there's nothing new like even angry investors and the Brazilian web page is defunct now so at least 2 machines were said to be under construction (US and Brazil) - what's happened to them?

People do keep falling for scams like this.

a reply to: VoidHawk

A mechanical engine with moving parts.

Thermodynamics says no me thinks.

Good luck to them all the same, hope we learn something new.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
Fairly sure they've had time to sort out the bugs by now (5+ years)

Anyone aware of what the state of this thing is now?

This thread was made in mid 2013 and most of the posts were made soon after. But there was a development on October 3, 2013 after the majority of the posts here...a patent application was published giving details of the device.

US20130256066A1 - Mechanical motion system for energy generation

The status is "abandoned". The US patent office issues all kinds of patents for unworkable devices and doesn't usually require a working model, unless the claim is for a perpetual motion machine in which case a working model is required. I would presume that the working models being built never worked.

Some of the language in the patent application in incoherent and self contradictory, for example it says the device is essentially a perpetual motion machine then says it's not a perpetual motion machine!

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
...
The present disclosure relates to continuous and perpetual mechanical motion for energy production exclusively powered by the force or energy of gravity.

FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention is in the area of energy production but focused on and with the objective of obtaining this generation by only using the energy of gravity. When we think of exclusively using force of gravity to power the system, and when this force is present at any place and at any time and is constant, we are not referring to perpetual motion that will work forever while the mechanical equipment that makes up the system lasts. This would be the greatest innovation of recent times. It would promote a huge change in the world that will be referred to before and after this invention.

Maybe something was lost in the translation but to me that says it is a perpetual motion machine but it's not a perpetual motion machine.

The patent application should remove any doubt that the device won't work for people who understand physics. For people who don't understand physics, we can add this and other similar devices to the Museum of Unworkable Devices.

I think this is an apt analogy for people who expected this device to work or even have some chance of working:

The Physical Principles of Unworkable Devices.

Unworkable Devices.
Perpetual motion machine inventors do have principles. Unfortunately the physical principles they assume are often ones not obeyed by nature. Let's examine just a few.

-The principle of unlimited possibility. Anything is possible in nature.
-The "heavier on one side" seduction.
-The "more weight on one side" distraction.
-The "unbalanced torque" deception.
-The cyclic disappointment. ...

Anything is possible
Inventors assume that since we haven't looked at every part of the universe nor have we looked at all possible mechanisms or phenomena, we can't rule out anything. If one has faith in oneself, perseverance, and tinkers long enough with new and untested ideas, one may discover ways to thwart "known" laws of physics.

Those who think this way are much like the child who puts two blocks in a box, closes the box, shakes it, then opens it, hoping to find three blocks inside. The child hasn't yet had sufficient experience with how nature works to realize that nature doesn't work that way. Perpetual motion machine seekers hope that by using some new combination of well-known materials and well-known mechanisms, they just might make a machine that outputs more work than is required to run it.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: mikell

Strange there's nothing new like even angry investors and the Brazilian web page is defunct now so at least 2 machines were said to be under construction (US and Brazil) - what's happened to them?

People do keep falling for scams like this.

The interesting thing is, I never found evidence of investors being scammed in this case, though that certainly does happen with other hoaxes. My guess would be that the inventor filing the patent application, Renato Ribeiro, and possibly some Ribeiro family members, may have financed the construction, thinking the device would actually work, though I'm not sure about that, but I didn't see any way to invest even if you wanted to. So unless someone shows otherwise, I'm thinking this was not so much a scam as a case of hoping to "find three blocks inside the box" through a failure to understand the operation of nature.

a reply to: andy06shake
I think it fails fundamentally even before getting to the friction of moving parts, because it won't even move by itself to begin with. It's some variation on misconceptions like this one which some people think will rotate because there's more weight on one side, so it has to (but it doesn't). I think the inventor's idea was some kind of variation of this type of thinking:

The most naive level of perpetual motion seduction is the notion that if a system has more mass on one side of the axle, then that side must swing downward. That notion is quickly dispelled by consideration of this symmetric arrangement of three equal mass balls on equal length arms. Clearly there's more mass on the left side of the axle. But just as clearly, the device will not turn of its own accord. Even worse, if given a push, it will not turn continually. It will come to a stop from dissipative forces just as any wheel would. This wheel is as likely to come to rest in one position as in any other, for it is perfectly balanced in any position. Persons who have little experience with mechanisms may think it would prefer to come to rest with one ball directly above the axle, and the other two below. That is not true. Our naive expectations are not the way nature works.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the update on this device

I just thought it a little strange that this project got as far as it did considering the patent office's approach to proposed perpetual motion machines. A lot of someone's cash was blown away for sure on what's now a pile of scrap metal or perhaps a large piece of 'modern art'.