Real Non-Perpetual Gravity Engine

AmanShah · March 24, 2012

According to Perpetual Motion Defination,from wikipedia,

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

Reality is we cannot go against those three laws of thermodynamics and three newton’s laws?These laws are verified to be true!So the perpectual devices based on modern Perpectual Defination can not be made(impossible). But real gravity engines are possible to make which do not violate laws of thermodynamics and Newton’s laws of motion.

Yes,some well known accepted laws of physics are proved wrong recently as I expected because those laws were made on assumptions which were not verified properly as true.But newton’s laws and laws of thermodynamics have enough evidences/proofs to proove it right.

My Gravity engine Is not Perpectual and based on the regular laws of physics you read in books,use or see everyday.

Why my engine works and why it is not Perpectual?

If it does not work,it will prove the regular laws of physics absolutely wrong!

All the laws of physics used in my engine are already validated to be true!and all those theories are used in other devices

There are three types of theories which can be proposed by a scientist:

1)theories based on assumptions(assumptions made with doubtable reasons):May be wrong or right:need to be experimentally verified

2) theories based on well known and well established laws:Always right

3)Hybrid of 1st and 2nd type

My engine is based on 2nd type!

To prove my engine works I have to prove that my engine works on regular laws of physics!

Since my engine is based on regular concepts of physics,there is no doubt that it works!

To check the validity of my engine,you may check the Example showing how Gravity energy is used as fuel in my engine

Now I am going to start making a prototype!I am talking to my college professors for starting this project!And the response is positive! Real Non-Perpectual gravity magnetic engines

Example showing how Gravity energy is used as fuel in my engine

Refer figure on,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6854088744/in/photostream

Assume that you spend energy to lift the ball up through a motor for half cycle and recover the energy by generator for rest half cycle using Motor *** generator controlled by a commutator.

Remember the stress (resistance offered) will cross the yield stress of the piezoelectric material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength

Due to stress development period,the time taken for developing additional power will be slightly increased by few seconds.But the end result is getting additional output energy from piezoelectric material ,due to gravity acting on it for more time.

This is the principle of operation of my engine.

In actual practise,to realise the resistance offered to the heavy object(heavy piston in actual engine), what we do here is distribute or channel the gravity/ weight point load from the centre of the shaft ,instead of direct point weight load on a small element.For more information on this please see,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6862280754/in/photostream

The reason why I am not able to disclose the whole invention is because I am applying for a patent and it is needed to keep the invention secret from the world before patent is applied.So I decided to explain my basic idea/concept by an example of Piezoelectric basket ball net.

Just wanted to share this,Please share the below very very important article with as many people as possible:

A real gravity /magnetic engine is not a Perpectual motion machine ,considering modern Defination.!I am myself inventing a non -Perpectual gravity engine!People think falsely that gravity and magnetic engines are impossible but it is not true!They are mostly mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual machines or claiming to invent such engine that are Perpectual for us!These cheaters and non intelluctual conventional minded people have made our scientists life miserable.Very little people believe in us real scientists because of the psycological thinking that gravity / magnetic engines are Perpectual!It seems these people including most professors have stopped thinking the reality and are only bookish.Though complex,the most simplest principle/way to make use of gravity is using concept of resistance to gravity,inspired from nature and making use of flywheels.

Reminding once again:My engine is not Perpectual!

Don’t be dump:Spread awareness about real gravity engines which are not Perpectual!Ask people never get mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines!Let me tell you that there might be only 20 real gravity/magnetic engines inventors,all others are cheaters!

I am not posting spam,those cheaters are posting spams!

The internet community should explain the reality to other people!Dont simply tell people that free energy engines exist:Unless you explain them that these engines are not Perpectual and you can use gravity resiatance concept intelligently,no one will believe in us!And try to spread my message to atleast 20 famous websites each of you!Be aware of spams and cheaters like this:

www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sge.htm

and tell people that they are been mislead by such spams!Encourage only real authentic inventors like me!And I wil like to know whether most of you really know what is meant by a”Perpectual motion machine”.Please understand the concepts of physics!

My Non Perpectual engine does not violate any laws of thermaodynamics!Since its not a Perpectual machine!

If you all will do what I say,the day is not far when your children will see IC engines in museums,and will never go to any fuel filling station!But we only need your effort in right direction,not just some statements which don’t explain the reality!A magnetic engine is also possible.Photons compress atomic particles to store compressed energy in them as nuclear energy,but it’s not easy to make such engines.It requires a highly intellectual brain!

But gravity engines are according to me are more preferable to me than magnetic Engines,because extracting magnetic materials on large scale could disturb earth’s magnetic field which can cause floods,earthquakes,etc.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Aman Shah

belovelife · March 25, 2012

does it work?

AmanShah · March 25, 2012

Yes,no doubt it works!See the analogous example showing how gravity is used as fuel in my engine,which I have mentioned as well as the two Flickr posts(Sketches reference)mentioned there.Due to patent processing,it's not possible to leak out the original invention drawings untill my patent in published in official Gazette,so I have given an analogous example to explain the basic principles/idea I have used in my engine.

(Analogous means something very similar based on which some other thing can be explained)

:rolleyes:

Edited March 25, 2012 by Aman Shah

CraigD · March 25, 2012

You’re wise to seek not to violate known physical laws, Aman, but your idea appears to be the result of a critical misunderstanding of these laws.

Gravity cannot be used as a fuel. That is, you can’t get energy from the interaction that causes massive bodies to be attracted to one another by using up some or all of some “stuff” that interaction is made of, resulting in the bodies no longer being attracted to one another as strongly.

It is possible to use gravity to store or transmit energy. Simply increasing the height of a weight stores energy. Lowering its height releases energy – that is, does mechanical work. Such schemes have been used in devices such as weight-driven clocks for nearly a thousand years. However, in all these cases, the energy required to lift the weight is at least as great, and in all practical cases, greater, than that obtained by lowering it.

Energy can be transmitted in a different way than this, via gravitational waves, such that the energy comes from a decrease in the kinetic energy of the bodies emitting the waves. Any rotating body or system of bodies in which mass is not perfectly symmetrically distributed, such as our solar system does this. The power (change in energy divided by time) is tiny for most bodies (for the Earth-Sun system, for example, about 200 W), but can be very large (eg: on the order to 10²⁸ W, about 100 times the EM output of the Sun) for bodies such as the tightly orbiting neutron stars of a pulsar. This is an important theoretical explanation for the observed increase in period of pulsars, for which the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded, and for the slow decay of the orbits of planets around stars.

The heart of you misunderstanding appears to be this, from this flickr page:

Due to stress development period,the time taken for heavy ball falling from the net will be slightly increased by few seconds.But the end result is getting additional output energy from piezoelectric material ,due to gravity acting on it for more time.

The work [imath]\Delta E[/imath] of a heavy ball falling, either with gradual force of resistance, such as from a net with piezoelectric material that generates electricity, or suddenly, such as striking and heating an clay target, doesn’t depend on how long the ball falls, only its mass [imath]m[/imath] , the mass of what’s attracting it (the Earth) [imath]M[/imath], the distance between them [imath]r[/imath] and the height it falls [imath]h[/imath]. The exact classical formula is:

[math]\Delta E = G M m \left( \frac1{r} - \frac1{r + h} \right)[/math]

Where [imath]G[/imath] is the gravitational constant.

In cases were [imath]r[/imath] is much larger than [imath]h[/imath], as it is in most weight-powered machines, the above is accurately approximated by:

[math]\Delta E = m g h[/math]

where [imath]g[/imath] is the acceleration of gravity where the body is, about 9.8 m/s/s near the Earth’s surface.

Notice that there is no term for the time the ball falls in these equations. If your machine lowers the ball slowly, the energy released is no greater than if it lowered it quickly. Even if the machine is 100% mechanically efficient – no heat, sound, electrical resistance, etc – it can’t raise the ball for less energy, or gain more energy lowering it, than given by the above equations.

I noticed from your flickr page comment that you are in college, and have spoken to your teachers about your idea. I hope you are or will take an introductory physics or physical science class, as such instruction explains what I’ve summarized in this post far more completely and interactively. Until you master basic classical mechanics, you won’t be able to recognize mistakes such as you’ve made in this thread.

AmanShah · March 26, 2012

The sentence "Energy released...... is no greater than lowered Quickly "is valid only for Motor *** Generator(controlled by commutator)

what about the piezoelectric Material which offers resistance to lowering of ball.This resistance is due to stress(related to atomic dislocation) which is tried to overcome by gravity by pushing the ball on the net which transfers the gravitational energy which was acting for some milliseconds time to the net to set the ball in inter atomic vibration.This concept is suppose to be a common sense.

Disagreeing this means disagreeing the existance of Stress and Newton's law of Equal and opposite reaction.

The resistance is not overcomed immediately, but slowly in milliseconds.

A similar concept is used in my engine by creating resistance by making two shaft elements from the centre where heavy weight is applied as shown in Second Flickr post,not the first.

That's the secret.

The actual engine does not use Piezoelectric material but something similar to it to offer overcome able resistance ,which is somewhat very similar to /analogous to second Flikr Post.

The exact engine details can't be leaked out before patent is published in official gazette.

Whether gravity is energy or fuel or energy transfer medium,whatever it is,An energy is needed to overcome resistance.In the same way as a resistance is overcomed in an electrical circuit by applying high voltage electricity.

But it can be used to run something.An energy is needed to run something.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Aman Shah

bravox · March 26, 2012

It is possible to use gravity to store or transmit energy. Simply increasing the height of a weight stores energy. Lowering its height releases energy – that is, does mechanical work. [...] However, in all these cases, the energy required to lift the weight is at least as great, and in all practical cases, greater, than that obtained by lowering it.

Unless we use the energy of the sun to do the lifting for us, which is exactly how hydroelectric plants work.

Just thought I'd point that out.

AmanShah · March 27, 2012

If the example in my first Flickr post is too confusions,see the second Flockr post.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6862280754/in/photostream

This flickr sketch post shows an Example showing a way of making use of gravity to get additional output energy through resistance

Compared to case 1),resistance is less in case 2),but advantage of case 1) is production of power output,due to resistance build up.In both cases,weight applied will bring the central rod down.

What is interesting here(case1) is the rod through which the weight acted on the shaft in the centre falls on the floor even with the shaft length extension both side of the weight focus/aim.When you don't have a big extended shaft(case 2),you have little resistance.

You can notice here,irrespective of length of shaft(upto a certain limit)(small or big),the rod with weight in the centre falls down.

This shows that resistance can be overcomed by gravity even by shaft extension at both sides of weight focus till certain limit and in this process,although the speed of the rod falling decreases by a few nano seconds converts gravity to electricity.Its something like blocking an easy path a bit to allow for a difficult/lengthy path a bit. you notice here,

the amount of rotation of each wheel irrespective of speed is same in case 1 and case 2 ,and this shows how more energy can be extracted.

This phenomeneon that occurs regularly in nature is converted by me into a proper mechanism.

Offcoarse energy required to lift up the heavy ball will be recovered from one wheel in case 1) and the output energy will be taken out through another wheel (case1).

That was just an Very similar analogy,actual engine will be a bit more different.It will also equip 4 flywheel,impulsive rods,2 Gear arrangement,etc.

CraigD · March 27, 2012

It is possible to use gravity to store or transmit energy. Simply increasing the height of a weight stores energy. Lowering its height releases energy – that is, does mechanical work. [...] However, in all these cases, the energy required to lift the weight is at least as great, and in all practical cases, greater, than that obtained by lowering it.
Unless we use the energy of the sun to do the lifting for us, which is exactly how hydroelectric plants work.

Your point – which I think is that a hydroelectric powerplant is essentially the same sort of stored energy using system as the weights, chains, and pulley using one in a grandfather clock – is a good one, bravox :thumbs_up

However, regardless of whether the energy comes from the sun or an artificial source, the “you can’t get more energy out lowering the weight than you put in raising it” law is still true. It’s just that “you” in the case of a solar-powered system like the Earth’s water includes the Sun and the atmosphere.

CraigD · March 27, 2012

The sentence "Energy released...... is no greater than lowered Quickly "is valid only for Motor *** Generator(controlled by commutator)
what about the piezoelectric Material which offers resistance to lowering of ball [?]

It doesn’t matter what material or mechanism is used. The energy extracted from a system can’t exceed its potential energy.

This resistance is due to stress(related to atomic dislocation) which is tried to overcome by gravity by pushing the ball on the net which transfers the gravitational energy which was acting for some milliseconds time to the net to set the ball in inter atomic vibration.This concept is suppose to be a common sense.

Attempting to understand physic or design engines using common sense is almost always a bad idea, and the reason that physicist and engineers go to school.

I think that you, Aman, should take an introductory physics or general physical science class, because your writing suggest that you don’t understand the essentials of classical physics. Without understanding these, you can’t really write sensibly about how physical systems like your proposed “gravity engine” work, or understand explanations like mine above about why it won’t behave as you intuitively imagine.

If you want to get started before class, try understanding the following key ideas, expressed as equations, by calculating values for them for simple systems you sketch:

[math]\text{Velocity} = \frac{\Delta \text{Position}}{\Delta \text{Time}}[/math]

[math] \text{Acceleration} = \frac{\Delta \text{Velocity}}{\Delta \text{Time}}[/math]

[math] \text{Force} = \text{Mass} \times \text{Acceleration}[/math]

[math] \text{Energy} = \text{Work} = \text{Force} \times \Delta \text{Position}[/math]

([imath]\Delta[/imath] means "change in"). Add to these basic idea/definition/equations the simple classical law for the force of gravity,

[math]\text{Force} = \frac{G \times \text{Mass}_1 \times \text{Mass}_2}{(\text{Position}_1 - \text{Position}_2)^2}[/math]

and you’ll know the fundamentals needed for your ideas. With just these, and some engineering approximations for the efficiency of electric motors, piezoelectric transducers, and other devices that come to your mind (or just wild guesses - all's OK as long as you don't allow anything to be more than 100% efficient), you should be able to show why your engines won’t work, and understand what I mean in my previous post by “there is no term for the time the ball falls in these equations.”

Unless you understand, more formally that with “common sense”, the ideas underlying terms such as energy, stress, and gravity, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you used the terms. Please don’t be discouraged or offended by my criticism, but please, learn of what I’m writing before making further posts like yours in this thread. It's good to be excited by ideas, but you need to understand their foundations, too.

Posting questions in order to learn these essentials is a good - there's no such thing as an incorrect questions.

AmanShah · March 27, 2012

Who is telling you that potential energy is exceeded???

If my first comment is confusions,look at the Flickr webpage(Another post/another example):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6862280754/in/photostream

Showing two cases.You can see time required for heavy ball is increased by nano seconds to overcome resistance to the gravity ,due to the shaft extension sideways.

You didnt understood the concept at all!!

I think I explained this clearly in my last comment.

Are you disagreeing the concept of resistance which is a fundamental Science.

If the example in my first Flickr post is too confusions,see the second Flockr post.

http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream