Why PM magnet motors and PM Gravity machines cannot possibly ever work

[Rafael Ti]

I argue that gravity does not 'energise' the water. This may seem controversial, but indulge me for a moment. The water possesses potential energy as a function of its altitude above the exit nozzle of the turbine. The altitude of the water itself arose because enormous quantities of solar energy were expended, causing evaporation and later on, precipitation. This solar process is hugely inefficient in terms of energy expenditure versus energy output from falling water.


All that gravity managed to achieve was to draw the water downwards through a gravity well arising from the curvature of space/time due to the mass of planet earth. Gravity did not therefore add potential energy to the water. Whether it added kinetic energy may seem controversial per F = m*a. Newton might have said it did, but I think it is fairly uncomplicated.

Comparing gravity to falling water we don't need to consider the whole process of evaporation and precipitation and the solar energy involved in I think. Solar energy acts against the force of gravity up to some level (altitude) and then 'lives' the water with some potential energy. But what I've got before me comparing these two is; falling energized water on one side and falling weights of gravity wheel on other side. Both the 'bodies' can fall  o n l y  thanks to gravity. Both forces we can consider as homogeneous. Energy from both we can, I believe, harness using turbines (wheels) -> generally the leverage systems, because wind or water turbine is also kind of leverage system. We know and use turbines we can immerse completely in energy bearing medium (as it is always in case of gravity) and still can harness energy from it.
Greetings...

[Low-Q]

@ quantumtangles

I think you have a good point. However, what cause the countless times of exploding stars, the making of new stars? It has definitely something to do with gravity. Without gravity, we would not be here. Stars would not exist, not the universe (as we know it). What came first? gravity or mass?

Vidar

[Just George]

I very much disagree with the original poster on both counts.

[Low-Q]

I very much disagree with the original poster on both counts.

In "small scale" such as we humans are able to build, I think it makes sense what the original poster says. In universe scale, there are definitely something "perpetual" going on. The good thing is that we can harvest the energy we need from this "going on" out there - energy from the sun for example. It's free, and we do not need it when the sun is gone.


Vidar

[Just George]

In "small scale" such as we humans are able to build, I think it makes sense what the original poster says. In universe scale, there are definitely something "perpetual" going on. The good thing is that we can harvest the energy we need from this "going on" out there - energy from the sun for example. It's free, and we do not need it when the sun is gone.


Vidar

No, I mean that I disagree with the original poster as per his statements that PM gravity and magnet motors cannot ever work.

I also think that the ideas describing both gravity and magnetic fields within this thread are incorrect.

My view on how magnets work is that they are lenses, or  antennae if you will, that focus energy that already exists. The manifestation of that energy where we can interact with it is what we call a magnetic field.