Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08

[LarryC]

@dudeman: all I can say is, yes, you are right, but you don't go far enough. Let me put it this way: What goes up must come down. And, more importantly, what goes down must have gone up.
All the available work from one end of your lever going down, is used up "resetting" the system for another cycle (or another mass switch to "fire".) The mondrasek wheel, mine or anybody else's, will not work.
Care to wager a thousand dollars of Monopoly Money on it? I'd bet against it in a heartbeat.

EDIT Of course I do encourage you to see for yourself. That is why I do what I do--I'm seeing for myself. In spite of Larry's opinion, I'm not "playing anyone for a fool". I am really seriously trying to keep some extremely creative and intelligent people from wasting the time and money they could be using actually to improve the world, or at least some little part of it.

Well, TK at least you are man enough to admit what you are trying to accomplish and you are much better a man than most of the hidden distractors. You have earned my respect for that statement. Just keep in mind that the researcher on this site don't care if the goal is impossible according to known physics. We just don't believe that all is known and will continue to explore new possibilities no matter the odds.

Regards, Larry 

[xee]

Here is another latch suggestion. Instead of putting steel wire over whole tube, just put it at center of tube. The end of the magnet closest to the center of the tube will be attracted to the steel wire and held in place until a stronger force pulls (or pushes) it away.

[xee]

In above latch suggestion there will be some energy lost to eddy currents, but the simplicity of the design seems to make it a good choice for easy to make units. Eddy currents can be eliminated by putting a vertical slot in the steel sleeve.

[mondrasek]

Okay all.  I've finally figured out (in terms that I can understand) why this will not work.  My assumption was that the only major force that needed to be overcome is the repeling force of the stator magnets.  I thought this could be overcome by the fact that we can put as many mass switches on a wheel as necessary to create an imbalance that would do so.  But there is a limit to how many switches can fit on a wheel of a given diameter.  My solution to that was to increase the wheel as needed.  But here's the catch:  The repeling force of the stator magnets is applying a negative torque which is force x distance.  When the wheel is scaled the stator magnets move further out as well and therefore the resistive torque (not force) is also scaling linearly.

I made up some  drawings and charts to see if maybe the torque due to the larger wheel and more switches scaled faster than the resistive stator torque.  But it does not.  I have posted those in the download section for those that would like to see.  I used a mass switch with the 1/2 dia x 1/2 long magnets Magnet Helper was helping to model.  I shortened the guide tube to 5 inches and planned to fire the magnet that complete distance and latch at each end.

I did drawing and calculation showing a 24 inch wheel with 8, then 16, then 32 mass switches.  I then upped the wheel size to 48 inches and repeated with 8, 16, and 32.  The torque imbalance for these were identical to on the smaller wheel as many of you could have predicted.  The larger size wheel allowed me to double the number of switches again to 64.  But if you look at the gains in torque due to the imbalance it is not increasing proportionally or greater as would be needed to overcome the resistive stator torque.  The increase in torques are approximately:

8 to 16 switches - 208% increase in torque
16 to 32 switches - 202% increase in torque
32 to 64 switches - 201 % increase in torque

So the gains are diminishing.

Another problem is that as you put more and more switches on the wheel they become closer together and not just one switch magnet is being repelled by the stator magnet, but several.  Then next two or three are also starting to be repelled.

So unless the firing of the magnet upwards by approaching the stators from the sides allows it to fly so high that the resulting Potential Energy is more than the energy required to move it into firing position this idea is another version of every other gravity wheel and will not work.

Oh well.  I never set out to build a gravity wheel .  Or any other OU or "free energy" device since I don't believe those can exist without finding some unknown phenomenon or force.  But I could not see the flaw in this idea and the more I thought about it, the more intriguing it became.  For a simple electric motor can make torque due to the attraction of magnetic fields.  And magnetic field are conservative fields of force, just like gravity.  But in the motor we use electricity to make some of the fields generate in different directions so that the rotor keeps turning.  Gravity is always in one direction and we cannot generate it in different directions like with magnets.  But now I see the flaw. 

Thanks,

M.

[mondrasek]

And finaly, the video of the simple latch.  Sorry it is so blurry.  Dudeman750 loaned me a little camera/vido/MP3 thing he had lying around and it's focus ain't great up close.  But it records straight to MPEG4 so it was the easiest.  All I have is a HD one the records to tape that we use to video the baby and local wildlife.  I haven't tried converting that on the computer to a format and size that would be uploadable here.  I'm not much of a picture/video geek myself.

You'll see how the toggle easily catches the magnet as I rock one tube back and forth near 3 o'clock.  You can also see how easily the magnets slide in the paper tubes, especially once a bit of dry graphite has worked it's way in.  Next I try to show a switch fire at the 6 o-clock position.  It does not latch does not catch the first time.  Right before you will here the switch at 12 fire.  Then I spin it and let it run out.