Gravity CAN do Work

[LibreEnergia]

I will take up your challenge LibreEnergia.
What you and many others fail to realise,is that there is two gravitational forces here on earth-not one. And one of them is a non linear force from our frame of reference. I have attached a few video's of these machines that work using this non linear gravitational force. Infact gravity powered devices have been around since the late 11th century. I can provide many more gravity powered devices if you wish.
So if not powered by gravity-then how?
This gravitational force has been around for over 4 billion years,and will be here for another 4 billion-well we all hope anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUqCU_yIvY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZyGlR-AmRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-le0CvK3kJk

Tides are powered by the slowing down of the earths rotation and the increase in distance between the sun and the moon. Gravity provides the 'glue' that allows this to occur, but it is not the source of energy. Tides are absolutely not an example of gravity alone 'doing work'.

Gravity is a force and a conservative one at that, meaning masses travelling in a closed path do not give rise to an excess of energy.

[fletcher]

Hi Mondrasek .. find attached two sims - the first is yours with a bit of colour added & some outputs for PE & KE for the two opposing masses - I've disregarded the structural mass of the rest as its minimal - the second sim is my facsimile that didn't use autocad imported structures - I think it behaves the same as yours [have a play].

Clearly, as you said, the rhs mass has a gravitational acceleration acting on it vertically - via its connection to the parallelogram like structure the mass exerts a torque on the structure twisting it - the small roller wheels allow movement & the torque wants to 'open up' the structure if out on a long arm.

A metaphor would be like water always finding its own level - in this case a structure under some tension/compression & able to move will do so to release those forces.

The important bit I think is that if you follow the sims it appears that they are predicting that there is no energy gain - i.e. when PE of position is added to KE of movement for each mass & compared we see a net Energy deficit, regardless of which direction it moves, IMO - IOW's its always lowering it's CoG.

Let me know if I have misinterpreted something or your sim has an anomalous energy gain that mine didn't & I'll look into it.

Thanks for bringing up the interesting parallelogram that uses the 'square' & hardly changes separations.

[tinman]

Tides are powered by the slowing down of the earths rotation and the increase in distance between the sun and the moon. Gravity provides the 'glue' that allows this to occur, but it is not the source of energy. Tides are absolutely not an example of gravity alone 'doing work'.

Gravity is a force and a conservative one at that, meaning masses travelling in a closed path do not give rise to an excess of energy.

So remove the moon,and see what happens to the tide's. The gravitational pull of the moon is the source of tidle movement,along with a small amount from the sun.You remove this source,and the tide's will stop. The fact is that it is there for us to use right now,and i can asure you the earth wont stop rotating any time soon. What people like you want to see is some exotic sort of energy that you believe cannot be achieved,while dismising those that already exist.
The earth may be slowing down,but the moon is speeding up as it gains distance from the earth-every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So there is no net energy gain or loss,and yet we can harness power from this 0 loss system.
In 23 000 000 years we would have slowed enough to add another hour to our day-now thats something we all should be concerned about !!right!!.
I guess premanent magnets cant do usful work either?

[Grimer]

...
SO really it is the flywheel of the Earth's rotation that provides the "power" in the tides, not gravity itself,
...

Quite so.


And by reacting against the earth in the right way we can also bleed off (or add to) some of that flywheel energy on a continuous basis, as Bessler, Keenie, Uncle and Sjack have done.


And I shouldn't forget RAR who are making a magnificent (as yet unsuccessful) attempt to do.

[fletcher]

Mondrasek .. BTW & FWIW - even if a mass is moved horizontally IMO it does take some work/energy [ force x distance ] - that is because you have to either overcome an objects inertia & accelerate it or accelerate & then decelerate it (overcome its momentum) again - we usually don't think about it too much in mind experiments with horizontal transitions & frictionless environments etc.