Youtube video of gravity device principle.. ?

[mondrasek]

Gavin,

I believe I understand all the parts, but not the whole.

You show the output unit in a container that allows the output unit to freely fall and flip.  But the container must also contain a (large) number of partitions to reduce the amount of work needed to lower and raise the water level.

How do the partitions not interfere with the raising and flipping of the output unit?

Thanks,

M.

[TinselKoala]

Gavin, as spinner and I and others have tried to explain, your partition system is just wrong. Look at the top of the water in the receiving container. It is this height that determines the energy required to lift the water. You are still having to lift the entire container full of water, so that the top of the water is back to the starting level. The work required to lift this water is mgh, plus losses. Your partition system doesn't work to reduce the work to nothing, it can only reduce it to mgh. So there's no possible gain from this system.
It is equivalent to lifting the water to h (not 2h) and just sliding it over. You cannot do better than this. If you don't believe me, get into your bathtub with some containers and start doing experiments.
And please, stop talking about "intelligent designs" and "better working perpetual motion machines." You are talking to some very experienced builders and researchers, who have been dealing with devices like yours, and more complex ones, for a long time. It is just possible, that these people do in fact know whereof they speak. And, since your design is very similar to designs of gravity wheels and buoyancy drives that have been around for many years, without any of them successfully working, it is just possible that you don't know whereof you speak, especially since you are making that fundamental and rather obvious error with the partitions.

[GavinPalmer1984]

Gavin,

I believe I understand all the parts, but not the whole.

You show the output unit in a container that allows the output unit to freely fall and flip.  But the container must also contain a (large) number of partitions to reduce the amount of work needed to lower and raise the water level.

How do the partitions not interfere with the raising and flipping of the output unit?

Thanks,

M.

The whole is complicated.  I have not addressed any specifics.  I just want a consensus.  Help me win the others with a consensus

[GavinPalmer1984]

Gavin, as spinner and I and others have tried to explain, your partition system is just wrong. Look at the top of the water in the receiving container. It is this height that determines the energy required to lift the water. You are still having to lift the entire container full of water, so that the top of the water is back to the starting level. The work required to lift this water is mgh, plus losses. Your partition system doesn't work to reduce the work to nothing, it can only reduce it to mgh. So there's no possible gain from this system.
It is equivalent to lifting the water to h (not 2h) and just sliding it over. You cannot do better than this. If you don't believe me, get into your bathtub with some containers and start doing experiments.
And please, stop talking about "intelligent designs" and "better working perpetual motion machines." You are talking to some very experienced builders and researchers, who have been dealing with devices like yours, and more complex ones, for a long time. It is just possible, that these people do in fact know whereof they speak. And, since your design is very similar to designs of gravity wheels and buoyancy drives that have been around for many years, without any of them successfully working, it is just possible that you don't know whereof you speak, especially since you are making that fundamental and rather obvious error with the partitions.

This is not a battle of egos.  I respect everyone here.  You and spinner do not fully understand my partitioning scheme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIA2rZQgO_c

The link will show the partitioning scheme.  Each partition from the original container will drop a distance which is the height of a partition (X / n).  Then each partition must be lifted 2 * X / n.

For example.  With 10 partitions.  1/10th of the receiving container will empty into the top partition (giving container).  The next highest 1/10th of the receiving container will empty into the next lowest partition.  Repeat until all partitions are full.  All of the partitions must then be lifted 2 * X / 10.  The bottom partition will be emptied back into the receiving container.  The next highest partition will be emptied afterward and so on until the receiving container is full.  I have had many intelligent people vouch for this partitioning scheme.  Please try to understand it.

Distance = 2 * x / n

[mondrasek]

The whole is complicated.  I have not addressed any specifics.  I just want a consensus.  Help me win the others with a consensus

Gavin,

Unfortunately I cannot help you win the others with a consensus.  I believe this idea is flawed for the reasons that others have specified.  I only brought up my additional concern in the case that you had not noticed it and could not grasp the others' points.

I have heard several ideas "proved" in their respective pieces that could not work as explained once those working pieces were assembled into a system.  In those cases usually, like this one, one of the pieces also did not work.  But the inventor did not understand the explanation of that part's flaw.  So they ignored it and went on.  I am trying to show how the whole system does not work, even if the flawed part *did* work as envisioned.

But please continue until you are satisfied either way.  I would gladly accept being shown wrong, since it would mean free energy!  And we all could benefit from that.

I have not given it a lot of thought but might have to agree that your idea would work with waves and/or tides.  If so, the next question would be if this is a more efficient way of harvesting that energy than already employed or being developed.  Could be a part of the solution that way as well.

M.