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

Billvon commented regarding this topic on some other thread:

Oh,that's it???
That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.

That also depends on the resistance variation.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.

A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.

Basically you are violating law of energy conservation by claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.
And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's not how gravity works.
The amount of energy needed to lift something against gravity doesn't depend on the resistance of a medium. If you lift say, a ball off the floor, there is almost no resistance from the atmosphere. If you drop the same ball (after lifting it somehow) from a great enough height it reaches terminal velocity, it stops accelerating.

Resistance to motion because of a viscous medium is a secondary effect. If you lifted the ball off the floor fast enough (even over a short distance) then the atmosphere would 'react' and resist the motion. It doesn't have to be free-falling from a great enough height that the atmosphere reacts to the motion, in other words (ignoring changes in atmospheric pressure).

If the ball is at the bottom of a container of some viscous fluid, say, and attached to a string, pulling the string upwards slowly means minimal resistance, whereas pulling it quickly results in more resistance. But gravity acts as a constant force downwards, so given a viscous enough medium like say, heavy oil, letting the ball fall downwards through this medium means it will reach a terminal velocity. Resistance to motion because of a medium is independent of the constant force of gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In that case,the calculation of stresses will not depend on the resistance of medium.I mean that you will no longer need to use stress-Strain diagrams.
In this case you will prove the concepts of elastic limit,yield stresses,to be useless.

There is a limit to which anybody can withstand resistance.In case you haven't read this in one of my other thread,
this is what I wrote which I am revising it here just for clarification:

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this.
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed [It occurs in beams due to mainly Creep.]

(Note that I have two different concepts on two different gravity engines.Not to confuse between two different concepts.

I didn't wanted to discuss two different Gravity power concepts on same thread but I didnt came to know that I started discussing both the concepts on same thread.The overcommable resistance concept based Gravity power device is being discussed on "Alternative Theories "Section: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113803 )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stresses on what? The medium is certainly stressed by an object moving through it--it has to move out of the way accordingly. Eventually a limit is reached, and the object no longer accelerates under a constant force. This limit is how much of the medium (in units of volume) can be displaced per unit of time and obviously depends on the viscosity.

Otherwise different objects would freefall at different terminal velocities in the atmosphere, and they all reach the same v[sub]t[/sub]. So even more obviously, the viscosity of a medium and v[sub]t[/sub] is independent of gravity (apart from any density gradient). Note though, that a liquid medium can have a pressure gradient but no density gradient, so therefore a ball freefalling through thick oil sees a constant displacement of fluid at v[sub]t[/sub].

 

That is why the process is cyclic and not straight vertical.
Note that the Ananlogy that uses liquid is only for illustration/explanation.

As already mentioned earlier in my other thread on alternative forums,

Limitation of the example/Analogy discussed here:
1)The analogy only explains a single complete cycle of the engine in comparison to Continuous repeating cycle of the actual engine.
2)Water is not used in actual engine due to efficiency problems of water turbine energy conversion processes.Water splashing is turbulent and blades opposite reaction of blades to the water striking offers lot of losses.So some other much much more efficient Solid elastic type resistance system is used in actual engine.

Inspite of this limitation,the analogy successfully proves that a resistance increases intake of gravitational energy to a ball.
The process is like how a roof fractures after sometime due to Continous Central Self weight ,where columns arent present.The columns are resistance here which are overcommed after long period of time.
The continuous gravitational force acting on the roof actually opposes resistance offeree by column but ultimately there is a limit to resistance that can be offered by columns.
If you don't know why metal implants (don't know what's exactly those metal implants used in columns are called)used in columns become weak by weight then you should study material science,Dislocation theory,slippage of atomic plane,stress growth based on Grain Growth theories,etc.

 

No it doesn't. Only the mass of an object is subject to gravitational energy, or rather to the force of gravity.
You haven't understood that gravity is independent of the viscosity of any medium an object moves through, it would seem.

Your claim would mean that diving under water would make you weigh more than you do on land.
It's complete rubbish.

 

You mean the forums where you've already been banned as a crank?