Gravity Engine now in the USA.

Originally posted by boncho
Youtube is not evidence of anything beyond gullibility.

Thats a bit harsh.

Boncho on ATS is not evidence of anything beyond gullibility.

Where's the difference?

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

There is a lot of steel in that, lots of machined parts too.

Cost to build, the size and space needed is ridiculous. Especially ridiculous if it can only produce 30kw.

Thats YOUR opinion.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
Why would anyone even consider this when a wind turbine producing 30kw costs a fraction of the price, takes up a fraction of space and produces free energy?

Wind is unreliable.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
Hell, even a 30kw hydro turbine would be far more cost effective.

That requires holding back water, IF you can find a source to hold back. This machine could be placed anywhere, even under ground.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
It's all fine and dandy to produce an alternative source of energy, providing it works (of course) but also that its competitively placed against other, already established methods.

This machine would only need to be built once, and maintenance costs would be incredibly low. It would run 24/7/365 without wind or water. Seems very competitive to me.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

There is a lot of steel in that, lots of machined parts too.

Cost to build, the size and space needed is ridiculous. Especially ridiculous if it can only produce 30kw.

Thats YOUR opinion.

Also the opinion of the "free energy guy" from pure energy systems, Sterling Allan:

Gravity Motor

The person we spoke with didn't know of any videos that show earlier prototypes that demonstrate a smaller version of the design in operation. He said that they were maybe 2-3 months away from completing the demonstration prototype, and that they are posting updates on their site.

It seems to me that from an engineering point of view that there is an overkill on the amount and strength of steel being used. If this thing works, but only puts out 30 kW, there is no way the capital costs are going to compete with even the more expensive renewable energy modalities like Solar or Wind. But the biggest hurdle for now is mental, and perhaps a mammoth demonstrator like this would do the trick to finally unlocking the mental barriers.

This machine would only need to be built once, and maintenance costs would be incredibly low. It would run 24/7/365 without wind or water. Seems very competitive to me.

It's funny to see arguments about maintenance costs for something has bigger problems with the laws of physics than it does with maintenance. But do you have any idea what the maintenance costs are for a wind turbine which has fewer moving parts and is much simpler? This motor has lots of moving parts, way more than a wind turbine, and they haven't even built the generator yet. What makes you think a motor with so many moving parts would have low maintenance costs?

I can give you my reason: it won't run, so the moving parts won't move and that's why it won't need maintenance. But if it did work, it would need a lot of maintenance because of all the moving parts, and it looks like a very uneconomical engineering design according to Peswiki and I find it hard to disagree.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Is this a hoax? We don't know yet, and I don't think that just because we've had hoaxes in the past automatically makes everything a hoax.

Maybe "we" don't know, but I'm pretty sure I know.

There was a thread about a smaller device along these lines here on ATS involving an inventor building a gravity motor. He wasn't trying to hoax anybody, but he was obviously completely convinced he just needed to do some tweaking to the design to make it work. I tried to explain why it wouldn't but he didn't understand the explanation.

So in his case, I'm not sure the work hoax applies, as he was as genuine and sincere as you could possibly get, which are qualities I don't associate with hoaxes. I'm not sure what you call it if it's not a hoax and there's no deception but it just won't work. Maybe ignorance is the best description?

This is nothing money-wise compared to the 60-80 million dollars wasted by blacklight power investors, or the over 100 million inflation-adjusted dollars wasted by Keely motor company investors. You can call those last two hoaxes if you want but I'm not sure this is a hoax, just a case of ignorance perhaps.

I'm sorry to sound cynical-- but if this actually works, I could see it being suppressed, easily.

Those in control of industries where they more or less have a license to print money do not want to give up that power and position so easily. And having what amounts to a license to print money, and thus, tons of money they have plenty of resources to buy people out or shut them up.


It's been done before. There's a great documentary out there about how they suppressed the electric car.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

It's funny to see arguments about maintenance costs for something has bigger problems with the laws of physics than it does with maintenance. But do you have any idea what the maintenance costs are for a wind turbine which has fewer moving parts and is much simpler? This motor has lots of moving parts, way more than a wind turbine, and they haven't even built the generator yet. What makes you think a motor with so many moving parts would have low maintenance costs?

Wind turbines require wind. See my earlier post.

Have you ever looked at the old steam powered devices from yesteryear and how over engineered they were? Many are still there today, with the same original parts!

Looking at the device being built, the only maintenance would be the occasional bearing shell, and that would likely be every 50 years or so!!!
I agree it looks over engineered, but we don't yet know how it works. I personally suspect its going to be shifting large weight about and hence needs to be strong.

There's nothing wrong with over engineering if we remove profit from the equation. This is one of my arguments when it comes to global warming. If GW is real then governments ought to force manufacturers to make things that last, but we see the opposite happening; we have throw away products because they are DESIGNED to last for just a small amount of time and hence create more profit.

I hate how this very common device gets misrepresented.


Let me clear this up.

www.triplepundit.com...

Not that fancy eh? So your steel trap gets wound up tight and unwinds? I don't see what the hub-bub is about.

www.bloomberg.com...

Oh 25 billion USD market ya say? This particular one uses old ski-lift parts.


To tell you the truth, someone misrepresented this machine on purpose to generate interest in this project.
You've been bamboozled, yes it uses gravity, no it's not free.

The way this works is you upload or wind up your system during offpeak MWH usage hours and dump it on the market when the price is high.

I guess I should mention, wind turbines also use gravity.

While they spin they have a weight that is dragged up and when the wind becomes too weak or when the price of power is high (they've got to make money too, you know) they drop this weight keeping the turbines spinning.


The only thing that I can think of that would provide another source of reliable power for humankind would be a solar wind mill device that operated on solar winds. (Think of the division it would provide also for tptb, the poor would be forced to live in shadows or perpetual night. I think this would elate them greatly.)

A close next would be a break through in sonoluminescence.

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
I hate how this very common device gets misrepresented.

Let me clear this up.

www.triplepundit.com...

Not that fancy eh? So your steel trap gets wound up tight and unwinds? I don't see what the hub-bub is about.

That's not a gravity motor, that's a gravity-based energy storage device.

China built a huge facility that pumps water up a mountainside in off-peak times and then generates power from the water falling back down during on-peak times. It's actually pretty efficient technology, more than I would have guessed.

But that type of energy storage technology appears to be unrelated to the gravity motor concept in the OP, which is basically a form of the ever-elusive "perpetual motion machine".

Originally posted by VoidHawk
There's nothing wrong with over engineering if we remove profit from the equation. This is one of my arguments when it comes to global warming. If GW is real then governments ought to force manufacturers to make things that last, but we see the opposite happening; we have throw away products because they are DESIGNED to last for just a small amount of time and hence create more profit.

Yes, I think we have some agreement on that point, but remember there are engineering tradeoffs. I was involved in an engineering project involving the blower motor for cars (the heating/air-conditioning system). The goal of the project was to meet a certain minimum life expectancy of the motor (something related to an expected usage of 100,000 miles minimum before failure), and reduce noise to make the car interior quiet. So if you ever wondered why so many things start failing on a car after 100,000 miles or so, maybe that's why, if that was the designed life expectancy.

So a relatively noisy motor that was giving maybe 140,000 miles equivalent life was replaced by a quieter motor that would only give 100,000 miles equivalent life. The cost of the motor wasn't much different if at all. The only profit motive was to sell more cars because they thought people would prefer quieter interiors, and there were so many other car components that would fail after 100,000 miles that there was no need to design the blower motor to last longer.

In any case, over-engineering is usually not so good, because it's a form of waste, such as wasted steel, wasted energy to produce the unneeded steel, etc. Under-engineering products that wear out too quickly is another form of waste. Ideally the best advantage to society would be to engineer things to minimize total waste, which of course is a complicated thing involving some indirect costs, total product life cycle, and even landfill and recycling considerations.

One incentive to optimize total waste reduction would be to penalize people with disposal costs for throwing away items that have a short life, which would incentive both producers and consumers to produce and consume items which lasted longer, which I think in most cases would be a good thing, if it's not taken too far. In some cases consumers are given a choice of products with different life and sometimes they pick the longer lasting, higher priced product, but often they don't and merely choose the cheaper item (which in my opinion isn't really a better value), which is why it seems some incentive is needed to get them to pick the longer lasting item, if they aren't smart enough to pick it on their own.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by boncho
Youtube is not evidence of anything beyond gullibility.

Thats a bit harsh.

Boncho on ATS is not evidence of anything beyond gullibility.

Where's the difference?

The difference is I am not making a claim taking in investor money. And I have no agenda beyond my hobbies of setting straight internet myths.

I have done a number on this forum in the past.

Free energy claims bore me these days to be honest.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by leostokes
reply to post by boncho

 

The moon's gravity moves the oceans causing tides. The energy from the ocean's tides can be made into electricity.

Apples meet oranges.

Your example really doesn't change anything. Gravity is not acting different in any way. The tidal friction from the Earth and Moon cause tides, and perhaps it's invisible to the average human mind, but very very precise readings would show the Earth slowing down as a result from the friction.

So yes, harvest the hell out of rotational energy and eventually the Earth would stop.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, or we are doing it, I'm just pointing out how the system works.

And in any case, this "gravity engine" is not that is it?


The funny thing, is where gravity plays any part in energy production, it can be explained. However, all the answers mysteriously seem to elude the masterful inventors creating expensive "gravity engines" which are not so mysteriously ever proven to work.

edit on 20-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Apple meets oranges is a perfect explanation to your 'rant.'

The statement is a factual one, the tidal waves can be made into energy. Tidal waves are a result of gravity. Said gravity response can, and is, made into energy.

Looks as if you are the one who can't see gravities invisible effect.

As for the megalithic steel gravity machine, who knows. Have you studied it in person, or did you come to your educated conclusion from your keyboard? Maybe you have detailed drawings and data from the company.

Edit: I think this device is total BS.

Edit 2: I think Boncho is drunk again.

on this .. does not go far content.foto.mail.ru...

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I've been keeping my eye on the development of this machine. If you go HERE you can view weekly photos of its progress,

There has been no update for 6 weeks....

The reason I'm posting this now is because another one is being built in Gilman - Illinois - USA

CLAIMED to be being built in the USA....

Originally posted by Arnie123
Now if this really works out, which I suspect will,

What makes you think it will work? What science claims it would even turn under its own power....

reply to post by ChuckNasty

Edit: I think this device is total BS.
edit on 21-7-2013 by ChuckNasty because: BS clarification

Edit 2: I think Boncho is drunk again.
edit on 21-7-2013 by ChuckNasty because: we all like the drink, but should refrain from ats when doing so.

If you reread my posts and your response, it is you sir, that appears the drunkard.

I've always wondered if this is possible, not that I could ever conceive the working model. I understand the general premise, but it's still an amazing feat of machinery!

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by N1thNa1ath
Well guys the thing is that it really works...i´ve got people round there and they measured a scale model showing the quantity of energy in can get by transforming it into son kind of dynamo...

i guess it is based on this
www.youtube.com...

NAMASTE

Number 1: Scale models are not sufficient.

Number 2: Youtube is not evidence of anything beyond gullibility. (There is a proper way to support a claim, youtube is not it)

Number 3: Sorry we can't take your word on it.

Can't/won't take your word that it won't work either.


They are building the engines, they have national and international news coverage, there's a LOT of money and effort being spent after examining a proof of concept scale version the results and performance of which, according to reports and the fact that the full scale engine is being built, has convinced the builders to create the two real world sized versions we see taking shape in this thread and elsewhere.

Number 1: Scale models are not sufficient.

Really.

That's going to disappoint just about every engineering organisation in existence then.

Want to reconsider that statement?

Earthquake resistant building designs are tested and evaluated using small scale models on vibrating or swaying platforms to simulate the forces of an earthquake and the data gathered has been used to engineer real world skyscrapers with earthquake dampener and shock absorbers...aircraft designers have used scale models of their craft since the industry began, and used the results gained very successfully to build real world aircraft used everyday around the world...in fact just about every early engineering project starts off with a proof of concept engineering scale model or models...are all these 'insufficient' examples of using scale models to test a concept in your mind too?

Leonardo Da Vinci, an engineering genius, was big on scale models too.

I might remind you, that the force of gravity is measured as 1G...this force of 1G acts on everything...from a grain of sand to a skyscraper...1G would be the same acting on a scale model the size of a fridge as it would be on a real world, room sized engine.

Before going of on yet another frankly tedious and repetitive anti-alternative-energy-engineering tirade against any and all who have even so much as a passing interest in such engineering..this time at least, wait and see what comes of it before consigning it to the hoax or fraud section of your mind..that area of your brain must be pretty crowded with the amount of negativity that goes on inside it.

As long as there are Human beings, there will be fraudsters, but similarly as long as there are Human beings, there will be ground breaking and astounding works of engineering.

Besides, don't worry...i don't hear anyone is asking you personally for your money...so you can relax if your angle for consistently snubbing these subjects is a fear you're going to be 'diddled out of money'.

If it does work, and many of us are hopeful that it will, you and your equally negative buddies don't have to make use of it at all - you can pay full whack to the rip off energy corps for the rest of your days if that's what floats your boat...in fact, if i had my way, i'd insist you and others like you who continually rubbish these ideas and devices arbitrarily, don't have access to any of the benefits of a successful engine.

I don't know if this engine will deliver on the engineers claims, you don't know either...but it's one thing to doubt that something will work, and quite another to go around pretending and trying to convince others that you do know it won't. It is basically a lie, besides being predictably defeatist and uninteresting.

The world NEEDS alternatively minded engineers to experiment on these kinds of technologies, that's true from any point of view or side of the fence you're coming from, whether it's ecological, financial, political or ideological.
The ONLY area where this wouldn't be welcome is by those already financially invested or interested in maintaining the current energy monopolies.

Which makes it strange that on threads such as this, it always appears to be you and a few other members that seem to be on these threads like flies around the proverbial turd every time one pops up, although you and they don't seem to realise that your posts and posts like yours, are essentially carrots to those who are experimenting in this field of research..it's reverse psychology.

The more people like you try to steer people away from this research, the more they will try to prove you wrong..maybe not by the first or even the 1000th design or combination, but one day they will.

If we can imagine it, we can find ways to engineer it, despite and often in spite of concerted dissention. It's always been the case, and probably always will be.

reply to post by VoidHawk


I sometimes travel through Gilman, Illinois...its like exit 183 or soemthing on I-57....if I go by again ill check it out and ask around..and post any update or pm you.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Not my opinion, just look at it.

You have looked at it, haven't you?

You think those drive shafts are cheap?

They're machined billet steel, as are several other components.

Expensive.

FACT.