NeilT
If you device is based on gravity then it needs to be based on some process that can lift a mass against gravity, adding potential energy to it. Then extract that energy again when the mass is lowered, probably as kinetic energy to move a generating device, although there might be other conceivable extraction techniques. And the lifting process must be extracting energy from somewhere else to do the lift.
Yes I know, but that energy is already in place today, provided by nature, for lifting and falling. It is used on a daily basis and has been since the stone age. The trick is the switch between the two; lifting and falling.
Nature alone cannot provide the switch as it cannot sequester the energy or use it in a different direction. Engineering can.
I said under unity for a reason. Unity is the sum of the two actions Gravity provides, both rising and falling. My device generates some of the energy when falling and some of the energy when rising. The rest is used to change state in order to utilise the power of gravity (fully) in each direction.
Jim you are correct. I need to create a model. But to do that I need to get equipment, space and, most importantly, time.
As the financial crisis of 2008/9 destroyed me financially, I am unable to either borrow or fund this. I'm just keeping my head above water right now. It might take me a decade to get there without help.
I have a workshop at home but it is wood and diy based. At home I have time for work in the home and DIY when I'm not working. When I'm away from home (3 weeks a month), I live in hotels.
I would not have even mentioned this if I had not run this by the cleverest person I know, who happens to be an astrophysicist and a pretty good one at that. His final summation was that it goes against the grain because "perpetual motion" is such a debunked idea, but could not state any single solid reason why it would not work without calculating out the forces required in detail.
Well it is debunked every other way I've seen it tried anyway.
In the end he accepted that the beginning of the cycle used normal and well known processes. Just as the standard "Weight on a wheel" delivers the energy in one of the useless ideas. However not in the same way at all.
When questioned about whether the energy imparted in the down stroke was not enough to change the equilibrium by 1kg, he agreed that it was more than capable of that. When pointed out that the design uses the FULL power of gravity in each direction, once equilibrium has passed, not, as in virtually every other case, the energy of another falling weight, he did concede that the energy generated "would appear" to far exceed that required to change the state of the machine.
When pointed out that every kg change, beyond equilibrium added 1kg of force to the switch between states, he agreed that too.
When pointed out that the sheer design of the system drove itself to equilibrium at the end of each cycle and the energy needed to switch from equilibrium, was to tip the balance. Remembering that each 1kg beyond equilibrium drives the next cycle which accesses the Full Power of gravity, once the change over is completed.
If I say any more I might as well draw you a picture….
I’m not a troll. I’ve been thinking about this for 4 years. Along with many other ideas. Like my tidal rise fall idea. Any idea how impossible it is to get the Severn barrier approved? Nobody but the power companies and the government want it. The engineering required is astronomical. Discrete little (or not so little), islands out in the tide? Possible.
Do you understand why people won’t come forward with ideas?
I saw a way to change the IC engine. I was told it was “quite interesting” in its early stage because what I had done was to change the engine into an IC version of the Gas Turbine without the cruise requirement and eventual loss of efficiency in a motor vehicle. Granted it was an early stage (25 years ago). The assessor I was looking for funding from told me he was going down the coast to see someone who had created a new form of cylinder head which gave a potential 15% more mpg over the standard one. He was much more interested in that, he could donate a few thousand £ to it and have a check mark on his spreadsheet. My idea though? It would have needed a year or two of investment and would have upset the Oil companies a lot. Scotland produces a lot of Oil….
Welcome to innovation in the world. I do understand that for every successful idea there are probably 50,000 duds. However it doesn’t stop me from thinking.
I work in the field of IT. The nirvana in IT is to claim “recursive” compression on an infinite scale. There have been as many “recursive compressors” as there have been “Perpetual Motion” machines. I do understand what I’m saying. I just don’t believe I fall into the charlatan mould.
A troll I’m not. I was looking to see if anyone in the community knew, directly, of anyone who could help me realise my idea. Good, bad, or indifferent of results. Someone who could take 98% of the profits and even the glory(but not the name of the discovery), I don’t care, so long as they help me realise it or disprove it.
I estimate that a good engineering workshop could prove or disprove the idea in a week. Granted a week of a good engineering shop is “Expensive” with a capital E.
I’ll go back to thinking.
