It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Gravity Engine now in the USA.

page: 4
20
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by boncho

I'm no physicist, but are you familiar with a vehicles alternator? It produces power from simple motion. Yes, it is driven off of the vehicle which is providing the power, but the same concept applies here. If this machine could spin an alternator like device, would that not generate power? It's the same concept as a hyrdoelectric plant, except that instead of running water powering generators it is gravity/ centrifugal force by the looks of it. I think I can see how this machine works.

edit on 21-7-2013 by chuck258 because: /centrifugal force.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by chuck258
If this machine could spin an alternator like device, would that not generate power?

What would cause the machine to spin?

it is gravity/ centrifugal force by the looks of it

So what is stopping a car engine just running by gravity?

I think I can see how this machine works

Care to explain it to us?
edit on 21-7-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:21 PM
I posted on the older thread showing this device. It looks more complicated than it is, but looking at one part of it is fairly simple.

From the way I understand it, it's exploiting the use of torque in terms of leveraging a moment arm. There's a chain that goes around the rocker arm with the weight attached at one point, and the rocker arm has a ratchet mechanism driving a shaft. When the weight goes down it's on the longest part of the rocker arm and therefore exerts the most torque. When the rocker arm gets pulled back up the weight is on the shortest portion.

Driving the chain to make the weight go around its circuit of the rocker arm is pretty much a fixed load. But if the racheting action of the rocker arm on the shaft produces more output than the motor making the weight go around, then there's a gain. (In principle the weight covers more distance on the way down than on the way up, because it travels in an arc while being attached to the rocker arm mechanism. There just might be something to that.)

Interesting concept, provided it actually works.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by chuck258
I'm no physicist, but are you familiar with a vehicles alternator? It produces power from simple motion. Yes, it is driven off of the vehicle which is providing the power, but the same concept applies here. If this machine could spin an alternator like device, would that not generate power? It's the same concept as a hyrdoelectric plant, except that instead of running water powering generators it is gravity/ centrifugal force by the looks of it. I think I can see how this machine works.
If you go through the pictures they posted on their website, there was some confusion in their description of the device. Apparently they started out calling it a "generator". But they realized (I guess after someone pointed it out) that there's no generator, (like an alternator), so it's really just a "motor", so they started calling a motor instead. So if it worked they'd have to hook the motor up to a generator to generate electrical power.

Everybody who invents a gravity motor thinks they can see how it will work.

But they never work, because there is always something the inventor doesn't understand about the physical principles involved in the design. I'll be willing to bet this is no exception.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:20 PM
The basis of all these 'gravity' motors, and their persistent failure, is that there's a way to cyclically lift a mass with less energy input than can be recovered when it falls and that's been the fact since the original concepts over 5 centuries ago. Many configurations of this same basic idea have been attempted with great optimism but all have met the same fate - they simply don't work and the reason for that is really basic despite the level of complication in the apparatus. Maybe this one will do something revolutionary (it'll turn at least) but the odds against it producing any energy are huge based on the history of the idea.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
A few weeks back a thread was posted about this gravity engine. I've been keeping my eye on the development of this machine. If you go HERE you can view weekly photos of its progress, its well worth a look.

The reason I'm posting this now is because another one is being built in Gilman - Illinois - USA There's details on the link above.
Do we have any ATS members in that area? You could make a cool thread if you could get some inside info.

The whole world ought to be keeping its eye on this because if it works it'll seriously hurt the energy masters and they're not going to like it one bit!

Source

Since universal balance rules out free energy, even in the form of gravity manipulation, they should have built a small model s when they see it fail it wouldn't cost that much.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Fromabove
Since universal balance rules out free energy, even in the form of gravity manipulation, they should have built a small model s when they see it fail it wouldn't cost that much.
They claim they did build a small model, when Sterling Allan of PES asked them. But they provided no video or other information about it.

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by stumason
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?

If you had bothered to read the thread you'd know I don't know how it works. I tried to find information but there's very little being released. What I did manage to find out is the following.
1. It uses gravity as its source of power.
2. When it's finished they will attach a generator to it and they expect it will produce 30kw.

Originally posted by stumason
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.

You'll note that it is very well made so it's clear they are trying to remove as much friction as possible. There's also the drag caused by the atmosphere to consider too.
However! By looking at the pictures it appears that it shifts weight about, and I get the impression it swings those weights in an arc while also moving there pivot point horizontally. Maybe the designer has discovered something that the rest of the world has missed? or been denied the knowledge off?

When the wright brothers were creating their first airplane, everyone, including the leading scientists of the time, and even the military!! said "It will never fly".
They did didn't they!!!

Maybe, just maybe this is another one of those occasions?

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:28 PM
I find myself disgusted with the attitudes of people in this thread.
Some just want to appear superior because they think they are the only ones who understand the conservation of energy laws.
Others demand answers and when given them they come straight back with another question, each time suggesting that if it cant be answered then the machine cant work.
Then there's the other people, those who are obviously afraid that it might actually work! Whats there agenda? Have they got shares in other energy sources?

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by pauljs75

Thanks for the interesting post. I too think its working by swinging a weight in an arc. It looks to me like it shifts the pivot point of the weight, this maybe how it makes the return swing use less energy. I hadn't spotted the chain

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
everyone, including the leading scientists of the time, and even the military!! said "It will never fly".

Do you have a source for that claim?

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by VoidHawk
everyone, including the leading scientists of the time, and even the military!! said "It will never fly".

Do you have a source for that claim?

LOL you never give up do you.

Actually, apart from it being printed in many books, there was a very recent BBC docu aired and that was where I last remember it being said. Do you dispute this piece of known history?

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by VoidHawk
everyone, including the leading scientists of the time, and even the military!! said "It will never fly".

Do you have a source for that claim?
Not "everyone", but there's some truth to that claim that there was a lot of skepticism that the Wright brothers had actually made a flight and the Wright brothers themselves were partly to blame for the skepticism. They had no desire to prove to the public their plane worked, rather they wanted a contract and also didn't want anyone stealing their idea before they got the patent:

en.wikipedia.org...

A few newspapers published articles about the long flights, but no reporters or photographers had been there. The lack of splashy eyewitness press coverage was a major reason for disbelief in Washington, D.C. and Europe and in journals like Scientific American, whose editors doubted the "alleged experiments" and asked how U.S. newspapers, "alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice."[76]

The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer.
However the doubt was whether the Wright brothers had really flown due to their keeping the details so secret.

I don't think the belief was that flight was impossible, so I don't think that's really fair comparison to the gravity motor concept. The perspective in France clarifies this position and shows that they still thought flight was possible even though they didn't believe the Wright brothers had actually done it:

Ernest Archdeacon, founder of the Aéro-Club de France, was publicly scornful of the brother's claims in spite of published reports; specifically, he wrote several articles and in 1906, stated that "the French would make the first public demonstration of powered flight".
So obviously he believed flight was possible, disproving the claim that everyone thought it was impossible. People like to twist the facts to suit their agenda.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 01:18 AM
People have such fascination with gravity. People fail to understand that gravity is a weak force.

Earth receives huge amount of solar energy that is trapped by water (hydro and tidal power), wind (wind power), vegetation (agricultural products based fuels), and buildings (solar power). We do not need such contraptions.

Houses can be built with solar roofs and battery storage that can make a house grid independent.

A factory can generate a large part of its electric power from its roof. This is much needed in hot regions where much power is wasted in air conditioning.

Our energy problems are solvable by proper government policy and action.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by MysterX

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

No they don't, they have a blog they regularly update and press releases, and they got some small town coverage because they were running ads in a small town. Keep in mind, small towns also cover things like, "Billy Crisco bought a new bike for the girl with a gimp leg."

A generator powered by gravity may sound like an impossible device akin to a perpetual motion machine, but the Brazilian soybean processor Incobrasa says it has such a technology. And it plans to install a demonstrator model at its processing plant in the Iroquois County town of Gilman this coming fall. Incobrasa ran newspaper ads about a month ago in both central Illinois and Porto Alegre, Brazil, where it says an affiliated company developed the generator. University of Illinois Electrical Engineering Professor Peter Sauer says he's skeptical - See more at: wglt.org...

IPR is Illinois Public Radio.

That is not national or international coverage. It's someone falling for advertising.

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?

No I don't unless you can point me to the scale model nuclear reactor. Or the scale model of the Twin Towers that was used to prove the towers came down by two airplanes.

Ah but you can't, because even engineers do not claim this.

They use scale modelling for many other things (proof of concept, imaging, space requirements, etc.) , but they are not accurate facsimiles to the nth degree.

Some scale models are more useful than others, and some show more than others. They are not all in one, and not the answer to every question. *

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.

Forgetting things like mass...

And somehow there are more than G-forces which affect everything on and off Earth.

In an case, my comment was directed more at the scientific method needing to be involved. Anyone can claim anything about a scale model. Where is the paper that can be independently verified or tested, there isn't one.

Perhaps you should read up on the square cube law.

/argument

you can pay full whack to the rip off energy corps for the rest of your days if that's what floats your boat...

So you believe the plethora of "free energy" proponents seeking millions of dollars to back their unverified claims, you believe (or are under the impression) they would not charge you money for this pot of gold under they found under the rainbow?

Ok...

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.

No it isn't, this story has been covered twice already in the forum and beaten to death. It's been covered a number of times in other forums as well.

Just because you are new to the party doesn't mean everyone else is.

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.

Again, not true, people who fall for every shucksters scheme are a detriment to the one's who are actually trying to do something in their life, in discovery, science and engineering.

edit on 22-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by chuck258
reply to post by boncho

I'm no physicist, but are you familiar with a vehicles alternator? It produces power from simple motion. Yes, it is driven off of the vehicle which is providing the power, but the same concept applies here. If this machine could spin an alternator like device, would that not generate power? It's the same concept as a hyrdoelectric plant, except that instead of running water powering generators it is gravity/ centrifugal force by the looks of it. I think I can see how this machine works.

edit on 21-7-2013 by chuck258 because: /centrifugal force.

So why don't you power your car off its motion and alternator and forget buying gas for it. Let me know how that works and post your results to the forum.

Thanks.
edit on 22-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Smith Mountain Lake near Roanoke Virginia uses this system. During daily periods of reduced load, the extra energy available is used to pump water back up into the lake from a lower storage reservoir. This power storage system has been in use for maybe 50 years.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
If you had bothered to read the thread you'd know I don't know how it works. I tried to find information but there's very little being released. What I did manage to find out is the following.

I did read the thread, which led me to believe, owing to your vociferous defence of this machine, that you had an idea how it worked. That does now beg the question, however, how you can be so sure it works with no understanding?

Originally posted by VoidHawk
1. It uses gravity as its source of power.

Gravity would provide a certain amount of energy if they harnessed a falling object and used that to generate the power, but how does said object get lifted again to be in a position to fall once more and generate more power? Yes, you could have another object to lift that up, but then you have the same problem with the second object, so on and so forth.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
2. When it's finished they will attach a generator to it and they expect it will produce 30kw.

From where? I could build a machine that used Gravity by dropping a weight from height and using that to drive a generator. Problem is, how do I then lift the weight back up so I can repeat it? In a nutshell, that seems that is how this machine is supposed to operate.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
You'll note that it is very well made so it's clear they are trying to remove as much friction as possible. There's also the drag caused by the atmosphere to consider too.

It matters not how well machined it is, there will still be friction which leads to energy loss.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
However! By looking at the pictures it appears that it shifts weight about, and I get the impression it swings those weights in an arc while also moving there pivot point horizontally. Maybe the designer has discovered something that the rest of the world has missed? or been denied the knowledge off?

If that is how it works, then it won't. By using gravity to shift weights about, you're not generating any energy at all, but rather just moving it about and while you're doing that, you're losing some to friction.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
When the wright brothers were creating their first airplane, everyone, including the leading scientists of the time, and even the military!! said "It will never fly".
They did didn't they!!!

No, that is not what people said at all. People had been using gliders since the Middle Ages and new perfectly well that flight was possible.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by stumason

This really is one of those simple yes or no questions, and considering your willingness to take part in this thread I'm sure you wont mind answering it for us.
Is it possible that the designer of this device has discovered something that you are not capable of understanding?

Pleas tick box
1. Yes
2. No

I ask because even though we can all see this device has not yet been completed, you are insistent that it cant possibly work.
If you answer is No, then maybe you'd like to explain your amazing psychic abilities?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 01:37 PM

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

Really?

Can you elaborate a little or provide a link or two please, i'd love to read about it.

new topics

top topics

20