A new concept on a Gravity powered Machine(Non-Perpetual)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Aman shah, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    One idea has came into my my mind to make another type of gravity engine.
    If you take a ball up through straight vertical and let it come downward through semicircle with the centre of circumference of semicircle,being slightly extended as a slightly sharp more outward corner,gravitational work done to let ball slide along the curved path is more than work supplied to lift up ball in upward vertical direction.
    We can somehow use this principle to make a real Gravity engine.

    And also note that more gravity is directly used in a curved downward path than going against gravity in a upper vertical path,and hence this principle is not a Perpetual Motion Machine concept.
    Defination of Perpetaul Moion Machine:
    Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

    See gravity points on floor line are like arrays and when heavy ball moves over the half semicircle the ball slides over horrizontal axis two times once right to left circumferential centre and then left circumferential centre to right downwards due to gravity.
    Then ball is taken upward through vertical straight on right by supplying some energy.
    This is how we can make gravity engine to work with heavy balls.

    If the semicircle is stretched outwards from circumferential centre,you will be able to recover energy supplied from centre of circumference to downward floor motion and you will convert gravity to usable output from top most ball position to centre of circumference.

    For efficiency,it is better if the semicircle is stretched outwards.A proper shape of curve ,similar to triangle with curved corners is necessary.

    It is a common sense that for more distance to be covered you need more energy.For less distance to be covered,you need less energy.Vertical distance is straight and needs less energy to be supplied to lift heavy ball.(Remember that ball should be lifted in a straight path and it should not be lifted along a parabolic like curve)
    The curve streched semicircular distance is much greater than Vertical straight distance.So more gravitational energy is needed to displace weight over more distance.
    This is no way a perpetual motion machine But it converts Gravitational energy into Electrical energy.A Perpectual motion machine is not a energy converter but a new energy creator which is Impossible.

    Note:
    1)This is a gravity engine idea basic principle but this is not a gravity wheel.Hence,we need to device a system in which ball can be slided over rails/paths as well as we need to devise a system to convert sliding movement of ball into electricity.This is therefore complex.

    2)This is just an idea,not an engine structure.

    It is not necessary that all gravity engines are a single big gravity wheels without other equipments.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No matter what you do to the downhill side, you are never going to get more energy out of it than you put into it by lifting the ball initially.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    Well that's a very big virus misconception with people.
    The thought that gravity engines are perpetual Motion Machine is nothing more than a "Virus"

    I am not trying to get more energy by any means from a system.
    I am somehow trying to use more gravitational energy than energy supplied to lift heavy ball upwards.

    No engineer is fool that he makes a device which makes which makes energy from nothing.
    The idea described converts Gravitational energy into sliding energy of ball which is converted to electrical energy.

    There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

    Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

    If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    If the persion who related Perpetual Motion Machines with gravity engines/magnetic engines for first time was alive,and if I was a police,I would have jailed him/her on grounds of misleading the people and suppresing real Free energy technologies.

    Free energy does not means that it is free or created energy.

    What is free energy?

    It is the energy already available in nature at no cost to pocket.

    It is not a New generated energy.

    It is a freely available energy from nature(surroundings) which can be converted into usable electricity or work.

    It involves only service maintainace and free energy Device investment cost.

    People have horrible unthinkable confussions regarding free energy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You are one of those people. Please arrest yourself.
     
  9. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    Real gravity engines are not Perpetual Motion Machines.

    They simply convert Gravitational energy into Electrical energy.They convert energy,they do not generate / create any new energy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  10. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    You're an idiot. Ever heard of Newton's 3rd law? Ever action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction. That means that energy it takes to move your ball/whatever against the force of gravity to it's top postion to be dropped will be EQUAL to the amount of energy that you gain from dropping it. In others words the absolute best you can manage is to break even. But you don't have to believe us, go ahead, waste your money and build it and find out for yourself dumbass.
     
  11. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    100% Bull shit. There is no net energy they are EQUAL.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Sure, you could do that. If you had true gravitational energy (i.e. you had a varying gravity field) you can extract energy. As an example of this, if you shook a box up and down, you can extract energy from that varying acceleration.

    However, if you have a fixed gravitational field (i.e. an object in a static gravitational field) you cannot extract any energy from it. Any device that claims to do so is a perpetual motion machine.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    On the other hand, if he wanted to power a clock by gravity, you could certainly lift a weight and then as it falls it can power a small mechanism. Or if you could store a lake of water, you can then send it through a turbine downhill and power a city.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Aman.

    I'm going to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

    Please take the time to answer the question I am about to ask you as succinctly as possible.

    Are you talking about the situation where we have a resevoir of balls that are dropped?

    Or are you talking about the situation where we re-use the same ball?

    To the other participants of this thread, yes, I'm well aware of the implications of both scenarios, there's no need to lecture me on them. Give me a chance to see where this leads, and give Aman the opportunity to answer.
     
  15. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    Thanks Trippy,

    To explain the concept,I would like to explain you an another example.
    Consider 2 points A and B.
    You spend some energy from combustion to let car travel from A to B straight horrizontally.
    The Work done is Force * displacement = F*X.

    (Now let this be similar to giving electrical energy to lift heavy ball upward vertically straight.)

    Now the car is at position B.
    Now let it has to travel back to A in a "different zigzag path "rather than "straight path."

    Now in doing so,since the path is not straight X displacement BUT the path is Zig zag displacement,
    let the car travels say Y zigzag displacement.
    Zigzag displacement is greater than straight displacement.
    Hence Work done of combustion for travelling from B to A is F*Y.



    (Now this is similar to gravitational force acting in vertical plane which causes displacement around zigzag path)

    F* Y is greater than F*X.

    To explain the concept on vertical plane,I used the Example of a car traveling on a Horrizontal plane.Let us now talk about the idea of a gravity engine:

    Now work done by Gravitational energy from B to A along Zigzag path is more than Work done along straight vertical by electrical power input along A to B.

    Hence

    F*Y(gravitational work from B to A on Zig Zag path)>>>F*X(electrical input work from A to B Vertically)

    F*Y - F*X = Net Residue gravitational Energy

    Now this Net Residue gravitational energy should be converted into electrical energy by a sliding path energy conversion machenism which is yet to be designed.

    Now this is possible because Gravity acts in a array on floor.

    That means gravity is not only acting between points A and B vertically,but it is also acting at each and every other point of the zigzag path.

    That's the common sense secret of the concept which many do not have here in this thread.


    And yes I am not neglecting frictional and other losses in the actual machenism.

    The only thing left now is converting this "Flow Process" idea into a proper machenism which I have to do yet .
    This is extremly challenging design because I need to convert Slidding Motion into Electrical energy for which I may use two sided Semiconical cross sectional paths/rails and perhaps no body or very less people might have made a two sided conical Rail design.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012
  16. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98

    No I am not at all an idiot.It seems you are an idiot.

    Would you consume same amount of energy to drive 80 Kilometres and to drive 160 kilometres?

    If you say yes then you are violating Law of conservation of energy and it will only prove you as idiot.

    You also didn't noticed that the gravity is not only acting between two points but also acting at each and every point of Zig Zag OR Curvy Path.

    You just considered only two points A and B vertical .
    What about the points of application of gravity from the floor over each and every point of curvy Zig Zag path during downward motion?

    Have you given bribe to gravity to keep quiet at all other points on floor in a array except at point B?

    The gravity acting on the Zigzag path is like UDL(Uniformly Distributed Load) which we use in engineering.So this gravity then acts on heavy ball when it is Slidding over this ziggag path.
    I thought you all will be intelligent enough to understand this,but it's really a shame that none of you have understood this.


    The biggest mistake you are doing is being Conventional (Crude inbox thinking).

    There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

    Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

    If you substract this more total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Moderator Note:
    I gave you a chance to answer a basic question to clarify your point.

    You avoided what I asked, and simply remade your assertions.

    Consequently, thread redirected to a more appropriate subforum.
     
  18. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    Aman Shah's Gravity Engine

    ......well simple and great solutions are present indeed but the problem is world is not taking collaborative action.

    Cable power induction and Tesla Model S Technology are such examples which need collaborative efforts.

    Talking about loss of energy.
    How about many Gravity powered Chargers powering the cables at many nodes.
    I think I have the right tech to invent a Gravity powered charger and yes it is not a PMM please.

    However it cannot be used as a onboard engine as a small onboard Engine of this type cannot make sufficient power to run a cart/ car.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2012
  19. sigurdV Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    352
    IF! You can get next to free electricity in the induction cable THEN I dont have to suggest going nuclear
    and it doesnt matter much if we loose a lot of energy as long as batteries get charged while driving!
     
  20. sigurdV Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    352
    Holy Shit!

    This thread might get locked if I think loud about that problem.
     
  21. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    Thanks sigurdV.
    Do you think developing nations have the capacity to bear development costs for cable system and to bear costs of wasting electricity economically.
    For that purpose,gravity powered chargers attached to cables is betteR solution.

    But then there is an another problem.
    Have you seen India,Most of the cities are so overpopulated that you do not get a decent space to even stand at a place for 5 minutes.
    Then how can I provide space for accommodating Gravity powered Chargers.

    This thought came to my mind just now.The problem of space is also big!
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  22. sigurdV Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    352
    Induction efficiency will be improved if experts work on the problem, and at first only heavily trafficked roads will get cabled.
    (I suppose that means cities.)
    If electric vehicles (yes im including two wheelers) dont need lots of heavy batteries and engines then they can be made smaller on the outside and larger on the inside and will consume less energy. Adding to this that theres no need of using valuable space for complicated and expensive infra systems to change and charge batteries, then the attractive idea of getting rid of CO2 smog might be within economic reach for most developing large cities.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  23. Aman shah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    So you mean that as the size of Cars decrease,you get more space to accommodate Gravity powered generators powering the induction cables.Ok done!Good observation!

    But the no. of low quality cars being sold in India per day is like a Avalanche.
    Traffic is becoming uncontrollable and new bridges are also not enough!Where is the space!We want better solutions,atleast for overpopulated countries like India and China.

    I think improving induction efficiency for direct electric supply from the base Massive Generation plant is the best solution,but that's very very challenging Research work although not impossible.Electrical engineers and other related people have been working on this problem since the power generation and grid transferring systems were introduced,but they haven't got a Avalanche success.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012

Share This Page