http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Daniel_Bentea%27s_Gravity_Engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=980UZtrzuC8

real and easy work.

my thought is ;
the concept of this device is ; first start with motor and battery and gear pull a heavy metal to the top of tower(use input 4.5kW) then the heavy metal start to fall from gravity, the direction of rotation from motor and gear will reverse(NOT SURE),start generate electricity back to battery(35kW) without consume power when metal start to fall.

-The gear is special gear because use heavy round metal to store torque from a stress out off center force when rotate.

more output than input right?

thanks
geenee

So why couple it with a windmill...?

Seems if it produces its own energy, day or night, windy or calm, one would just use it as-is and not need anything else.

Also, if the principles are sound, why not remove the batteries and replace them with large capacitors.  Surely if it is closed-looped with capacitors it should demonstrate excess energy for a long, long time.

Like everything else, I would like to better understand the concept that drives this machine.  The only thing I can figure is it must have some sort of mechanical advantage that reduces the energy needed to lift the weight.  The question remains though, how does it collect more energy as the weight falls than it expends lifting the weight back to the top...?

Maybe it has something to do with velocity when it raises and acceleration when it falls.  That must be the key to it.  The distance for raise and fall is the same.  The velocity going up is constant; the velocity coming down increases (acceleration).  Mass x Acceleration = Force.  Mass x Velocity = Momentum.  So you have force coming down and momentum going up.  Two very different physical characteristics.

Next, if you convert the linear motion to rotational motion with gears, pulleys and chains, you come across the concept of torque, explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

I'm guessing if you work through the math, you can come up with a scenario/device where you have asymmetry, which is always key for free energy devices.

Quote from Dog-One on June 30th, 2013, 10:21 AM

So why couple it with a windmill...?

Seems if it produces its own energy, day or night, windy or calm, one would just use it as-is and not need anything else.

Also, if the principles are sound, why not remove the batteries and replace them with large capacitors.  Surely if it is closed-looped with capacitors it should demonstrate excess energy for a long, long time.

Like everything else, I would like to better understand the concept that drives this machine.  The only thing I can figure is it must have some sort of mechanical advantage that reduces the energy needed to lift the weight.  The question remains though, how does it collect more energy as the weight falls than it expends lifting the weight back to the top...?

Hi Dog-One,that concept is my thought(not sure).but gravity is free force like magnet.special gear can reduce energy(lift energy) when fall that trap gravity energy.all of this is my believe.

about windmill on motor and generator,maybe for cooling.

about capacitor,maybe not enough to power 4.5kW to lift.

thanks
geenee

Hmmm...

Power = Torque x Angular Speed

So that's what you pay for going up.  But coming down you have:

? = Torque x Angular Acceleration

That must be where you are getting the excess energy.  If the value of the second equation is larger than the value of the first equation, mathematically you should be able to prove the concept.  The units should still be the same because:

Angular Speed is just rotations per second;  Angular Acceleration should be just rotations squared per second.

Or better yet, take out your calculus formulas and just sum all the instantaneous Angular Speeds for the falling weight and see if the total Power is greater than the total Power required to raised the weight.  If the weight is allowed to fall far enough, it should be.  At some point X squared is going to be larger than X and if the average of X squared is greater than X over time, you got your answer.

COP come from heavy round metal.key to free energy.

first you rotate the heavy round metal,you use 1X force to rotate 1st round and after 2nd round that you use 0.3X force,3rd round that you use 0.1X force 4th round you stop pull the heavy round metal but it will run 5-10th and lower the speed then stop(the heavy round metal still have power to rotate after you stop pull it).

this is my thought,why lifting is lower than falling.same concept of motor generator self loop.

thanks
geenee

Maybe.  I think the large flywheel is to absorb the inertia of the falling weight for two reasons:  1. To keep the weight from smashing into the ground.  2.  To control the acceleration so that you can capture as much of the (free) gravitational force as possible.

Again, you only have rotational velocity going up, but you have rotational acceleration going down.  When the later exceeds the former, you have excess energy.  The part that is tricky to me is the amount of time it takes to lift the weight versus the amount of time you can capture energy from the falling weight.  I expect the later to be much shorter, but with the flywheel, maybe not.

Regardless, I think a small scale version could be built to demonstrate the concept, then either build a large scale one or multiple small ones.  Either way, it is all good if you can disconnect from the power grid.

I see mention of a patent.  Have you found a link to it as yet?

Here's an idea.
As a pair of neodynium magnets defy the pull of gravity, how about a band of such pairs with a steel ball attached closely to one of the magnets?



As gravity would literally have hell on Earth to grab a hold of the steel ball when it's directly above the magnets, which would be to the right hand side of the picture, surely gravity would then have it somewhat easier to pull down the steel balls found on the left hand side of the picture?
Thus making the pulleys continuously want to rotate CCW.........?

And yes, I'm no Van Gogh, but then I still have both my ears

Edit: I'm sorry, the magnets are supposed to be facing eachother with opposing, not attractive fields.
Like so:

Quote from Dog-One on June 30th, 2013, 12:34 PM

Maybe.  I think the large flywheel is to absorb the inertia of the falling weight for two reasons:  1. To keep the weight from smashing into the ground.  2.  To control the acceleration so that you can capture as much of the (free) gravitational force as possible.

Again, you only have rotational velocity going up, but you have rotational acceleration going down.  When the later exceeds the former, you have excess energy.  The part that is tricky to me is the amount of time it takes to lift the weight versus the amount of time you can capture energy from the falling weight.  I expect the later to be much shorter, but with the flywheel, maybe not.

Regardless, I think a small scale version could be built to demonstrate the concept, then either build a large scale one or multiple small ones.  Either way, it is all good if you can disconnect from the power grid.

I see mention of a patent.  Have you found a link to it as yet?

The patent still process,maybe..(sorry Dog-One i don't know).i thought about 4.5kW and 35kW,this number mean input only about 12-15% of output power.that is possible because when lifting, use 12% dutycycle
pulse dc motor but when fall, can spin 100% of turns to generator(same dcmotor).more output than input-->from input power,drive dc motor when lift and output power,drive dc motor when fall(generator).

to Lynx,free energy is from free force source,like magnet,gravity,spring effect,stress out off center when rotate,earth battery,earth capacitor,...etc.if you can trap it then you can use unlimit energy.

thanks for all
geenee

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Navrattan_Free_Power_Corporation_Ltd.

another Self-Looped Motor-Generator systems;
Navrattan Free Power Corporation claims that a 2 kW motor is able to power a 7.5 kW generator.

thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on July 3rd, 2013, 11:14 AM

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Navrattan_Free_Power_Corporation_Ltd.

another Self-Looped Motor-Generator systems;
Navrattan Free Power Corporation claims that a 2 kW motor is able to power a 7.5 kW generator.

thanks
geenee

I'm sure it is, but can it do it with 7500 watts of load...?

just with 5500W load.

thanks
geenee

Quote

Apparently, in these systems, some kind of resonance or harmonics are set up with the environment, bringing in energy from the environment, freely

[/i][/b]
So it tunes in to the surrounding..........what?..........electric installations?.............and draws the necessary amount of electric power needed to keep it all up and running, including the extra 5500 W load.........?

Just a thought:
What if they were to take one of these machines to the middle of the Sahara desert, would it perform just as well there?

FYI

http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

Quote from Axil on July 7th, 2013, 12:09 PM

FYI

http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

I saw that one when Sterling first mentioned it on his site.  I just want to see it run.  If it does, then there will be no more guessing whether gravity can be used to obtain free energy.  Problem is, I could never build one like that even if it works.  Even a 5kW model would be as big as an RV an cost about as much in steel, plus another 100% in labor to assemble.

Still think I'm correct on the concept though--acceleration down, constant velocity up.  Get the mass right, the torque curves overbalanced and you'll get something out of it.

Here's a gravity machine from 1939.  Not sure how it slipped by us.  I get the feeling our ancestors were far more intelligent and creative than we are now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxIRaJlTD4Y#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOIGV294PM#ws

see the comments under the video: i asked some questions:

I'd say this needs a new thread.

~Russ

"rwg42985
1 day ago
 
Good video and Info, I have found that in the 2 stage oscillator once the small weight starts to lift the other side the small up and down motion counter acts the small input needed. I could never get any of my attempts keep going. It always counteracted it's self. I found this to be very true. I also found that once going and starting to do work it is doing more than put in but only for a short period. I'm guessing this system will do the same. The fact that each has a degree of freedom will counter act the Input. Either way... It's a good idea to try. By looking at it it looks good so now only tests will tell. By the way. Have you finished the test? Dose it indeed work? Or is this just unfinished testing? So others can also find the flaw on there own? Thanks, ~Russ

Reply
 ·
Hide replies
Aaron Murakami
1 day ago
 
My video here explains the same reason why you cannot try to close the loop on the Veljko Oscillator - to do so, you cut out gravity and you make the output proportional to the input and it will die down. Leave it open loop...then for each mechanical input on the pendulum, you get a multiplied amount of work at the hammer. That is the whole point. So many people think they need to close the loop to get overunity, but that is misinformation - to do so cuts out the free energy.
Reply
 ·
rwg42985
16 hours ago (edited)
 
+Aaron Murakami no, no, i completely agree with you on not closing the loop. i never implied closing the loop. what i said was that on the 2 stage oscillator once the heavy second stage starts to move it changes the standard arc swing path of the smaller first stage to a up and down + arc path and it drastically effects the momentum the smaller weight has from the small push it needs to keep going.  it creates a totally differently ark pattern, this change in its arc kills the effect.   like your elliptical path. it would be the equivalent to  changing the elliptical path in such a way that it counter acts what the bigger weight is doing. any how back to the first 3 questions: 1.Have you finished the test? 2.Dose it indeed work,Or is this just unfinished testing? 3.So others can also find the flaw on there own? im not trying to pick your work apart. im trying to find out where you stand on the subject. i'v been reading the forum too.. you can answer there if you want...  Thanks, ~Russ
Reply
 ·
Aaron Murakami
14 hours ago
 
+rwg42985
Hi Russ - I have done some tests, but I am not finished. There is more I want to do. The results I have are positive - it appears to be doing what is claimed. I have a clumsy setup and it is not 1200%, but there does appear to be a gain. I don't think there is a flaw in it at this time. I'm looking for a few ways to simply the upper parts, but with my renewed interest in this machine, I think I'm going to go back to the original replication. I don't know if I can do this before the conference but if I can, I'd like to bring it out for people to see.
"

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html

i'm thinking about building this one... thoughts?

Quote from ~Russ on June 2nd, 2014, 01:54 PM

i'm thinking about building this one... thoughts?

Gravity is right up your alley now.

Go for it.  I can guarantee you will learn more by it not working than you will if it does work.

:)

Fire it up Russ.  Here's some more details:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY#ws

do you think Ed Lee may have used that on his flywheel?

I wonder if ford 1930 model T used the bell housing the same way? add a bell housing with magnets.

https://www.google.com/patents/US1164317?dq=ford+magneto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jleRU4W5BuHLsQSzh4HwBw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCA