16 September 2011

Harvesting Gravity #3

 I know this may not make sense to some, and most will jump up and down shouting at me saying that “this is not what we were taught in physics class”.  I only ask for an open mind, but for you to remain critical for the sake of science, to understand exactly what is already happening in our everyday lives.

Toss a ball into the air; like I once mentioned before, doesn’t it come back to your hand automatically?  Did you have to expend any energy or extra effort to make that ball fall back into your hand?  No, it is the downward force of gravity we experience here on planet Earth.  With this, we know that what goes up, must come down. 

                Now take a simple pendulum or weight mounted on a solid arm with a central pivot or fulcrum.  If you release that pendulum from its top most position, it will always fall down until it rests motionless at its lowest position.  Now take a “teeter-totter” or a “see saw” at a park.  If a person weighing more than you, sits down on the opposite side of you on that see saw, won’t you be lifted up by their weight?  Yes,  I am only suggesting to combine the leverage or mechanical advantage of using excess weight to turn a rotational load of a lesser rotational weight.  I understand this is certainly not a new idea, but I believe it has never been applied in this manner.

                For example, take a 10 pound pendulum and affix it to a motor(1) shaft capable of lifting a total 11 pound rotational load weight.  Now direct couple or connect that motor(1) rotor shaft to a rotor shaft motor(2) / load(2) of a 1 pound rotational load.  If you turn off motor(1) when the pendulum reaches the top most position of clockwise rotation with a limit switch, won’t the weight of the pendulum (weighing more in excess than the direct coupled or connected rotor shaft motor(2) / load(2) with the 1 pound rotational load) drive the rotational rotor down by the effects of the downward force of gravity, until that pendulum reaches the lowest position of rotation?

Then, turn the motor(1) back on again at the lowest position of rotation to drive the pendulum back up in the same rotational direction, completing one full rotation.  In this design you will expend the energy required to lift 11 pounds one time with a slow RPM rotation, and receive the mechanical advantage of nine excess pounds over the driven load of 1 pound.  I understand that it is excessive but, I only used this example to explain this concept. 

You really only need to determine the amount of excess weight required to fully pull your driven load “down” to the lowest position of rotation on the downward portion of rotation utilizing the downward force of gravity.  If it only requires a 1 and ½ pound attached pendulum to drive that 1 pound driven load “down” on the downward portion of rotation utilizing the downward force of gravity, then you honestly are harvesting from the downward gravitational force provided by our very own planet Earth, and will only be consuming the electricity required to raise a 1 and ½ pound pendulum (plus the attached load) upward on only one half of a full rotation.  Just like tossing a ball into the air.

This is not explaining a “perpetual motion device”, it is a description of how to harvest 50% of a rotational cycle from gravity on a low RPM rotational device, as centrifugal force would have a tendency to override this effect if allowed to rotate at a high RPM.  If low RPM ever causes an issue, simply gear it up or utilize a belt system of a large wheel rotating a small wheel to increase RPM. 

No matter how you do the math, when you receive energy INPUT from a force that is freely available from OUTSIDE of the system (gravity) you are saving energy and coming out ahead in the end.  So let’s do the simple math that all of us can understand:

Both examples, driving a 1lb. constant rotational load

1½ upward motor/electricity ON + 1½ downward motor/electricity ON + the 1 pound rotational load = pay for total 4 one full rotation

1½ upward motor/electricity ON + free downward motor/electricity OFF + the 1 pound rotational load = pay for total 2½ one full rotation

                Consider the impact this design could have on any Electrical production system in use today.  If the pendulum is designed and incorporated into the turbine/generator of any electrical producing power plant, -hydro, -coal or even nuclear, it would enable 50% more output for the same amount of expended natural resources.  In other words, it would buy us time, it could increase and prolong the now diminishing usage of consumable materials.  An example would be, used at a coal burning electrical production plant; say for instance, the steam is used to rotate a 1 ton balanced rotor to produce “X” amount of electricity for one full turbine/generator rotation.  When designed with a 1 ton pendulum affixed to the rotor, the power of the steam would be used to lift that 1 ton pendulum for only ½ of the turbine/generator rotation cycle and then harvest from the gravity free-fall on the second ½ of rotation.  It could then produce 50% more energy with the same amount of spent coal. That is an awesome idea.

*Note:  You cannot compare apples to oranges, so a pendulum and a balanced rotor are in the same manner, not equal mechanical loads and values of results cannot be compared.  In order to compare you must use the pendulum affixed running on upward and downward as well as the on and off method.   Otherwise, you could just use a magnetic propelling field instead of electricity to drive the rotor attached pendulum back up to the top most position of rotation to allow gravity to disconnect it from the propelling field and dropping back down into the starting position of the propelling magnetic field at the lowest position of rotation again for one complete rotation.  -Michael Q. Shaw


For those who care, I have produced a Google Sketchup model of what this might look like using available resources today.
Buy two, get one free. You pay to lift two rotors on the upward cycle, the downward force of gravity drives them both down. It is not a mechanisism of stored rotational energy, it is not a flywheel effect, it is rotating slowly, it is harvesting gravity.
The entire purpose for posting these ideas was only to hopefully explain and describe the operation of how an upward curved magnetic propulsion field can in fact be designed and built to actually drive a worthwhile and useable load.
I was told by a very important and helpful attorney, to whom I owe much gratitude, that I have designed and built a “cool toy “. After humiliating myself with a inadequate and faulty comparison to a conventional motor design, I only hope that one person that read this may understand what it was I was actually trying to describe. As I have described with the pendulum, it is a rotatable mass, while with the magnetic propulsion field, motion is not constrained solely to the rolling of a chrome steel ball, motion can be transferred to a central fulcrum, pivot or otherwise a bearing mounted rotor.
I used the example of a ten pound pendulum, you can use a one ounce pendulum, it does not matter, a magnetic propulsion field can be constructed to provide the upward driving force to propel and gravity will always provide the downward force which places the driven element back into the starting position of the curved propelling magnetic propulsion field. If the rotating element weighs ten pounds, or one ounce, it will have the capability to drive any lesser driven load than its own weight utilizing a driving magnetic field with a gravity re-set making it so much more than just a cool toy.
Good luck Andrea Rossi, I hope your Energy catalyzer can transform our world!
“Lift” an object 12 inches, stop, and then open your hand on the ISS, otherwise in space.
Q. How far did the object travel? A. Twelve inches.

“Lift” an object 12 inches, stop, and then open your hand on Earth.
Q. How far did the object travel? A. Twenty-four inches.
You did dot “give” the object that energy. You did not “provide” that downward force, you simply exerted a force against a force. The force exerted by your arm against the downward force of gravity. As that object is lifted upward, yes it gained potential energy. You did not provide it that energy, it gained it by virtue of its elevation.
Here’s an epiphany... according to astronomers isn't our cosmos constantly expanding? Isn't it also expanding at increasing speeds? Doesn't that mean that everything is “perpetually moving” further and further away from everything else even while I lie motionless asleep in bed? Perpetual motion in reality, in existence right here, right now. The devil is in the details.
Doesn't it require energy to move an object with mass any distance? But, if a force moves an object with mass any distance, how is that not the same?
Gravity is in fact, a conservative force, but because it is a constant, consistent force, applied whenever it's source is present, just like a magnetic CAN be used to convert the provided force into energy.
Of course you can use a mass to generate electricity. You simply lifted the mass, you exerted a "FORCE" against a "FORCE" that was present. You did not "GIVE it that energy like we are taught in schools today, because you do not provide that downward "FORCE" you did not make it fall. Awesome video. Keep up the good work.
Loading Comment Box..