Youtube video of gravity device principle.. ?

[wattsup]

@GavinPalmer1984

So we're OK on the 2x thing.

Now, I get your math. Took me a little TIME to figure it out. So here goes.,,,,

The first calculation is based on gravity (9.8 m/s² or 32 ft/s²) so we say 10. 10 meters per second squared. This second is not calculated in your formula. Lifting the first 1000kg in one second means the speed of rise is the fastest.

The 2x500kg speed of rise will be halved because it has half the distance to rise IN THE SAME SECOND. So in the first you are lifting 1000kg in one second one meter high and you cannot compare it to lifting the same 2x500kg that only travels 1/2 a meter in the same second. To make the same comparison the 2 x 500kg would have to rise the 1/2 meter in 1/2 a second. And that makes them equal. As so on............

Time is on times side.

[GavinPalmer1984]

@wattsup

The time it takes to empty and refill the container does not matter because I am only proving that perpetual motion is possible.  I have previously stated that there will be more efficient perpetual motion devices to come... especially when people stop believing in our current interpretation of the laws of physics.

So yes, adding more partitions will increase the time it takes to empty and refill the container.

And it will decrease the total work needed to empty and refill the container.

[wattsup]

@GavinPalmer1984

This is not about the time it takes to empty the containers. It is only about the time it takes to make the lift. That is the only work here.

Try this little quiz I made.

Put the following in order of least to most energy required.

1) Lifting 1000kg - 1 meter high - in one second
2) Lifting 1000kg - 1 meter high - in three seconds
3) Lifting 1000kg - 1/2 meter high - in one second
4) Lifting 1000kg - 1/2 meter high - in one half second

Hope this will get the point across.

[spinner]

@Gavin
It seems to me we're just having a big misunderstanding....

If it is of any help for you (so you can go forward with explaining your device/concept), I'd like to confirm that I understand:

>>The partitioning scheme (which enables a proportionally the lowest energy input to actually completely  drain and then fully refill a certain amount of water(mass close loop displacement)).

>> In this thought experiment, we're not considering any losses

>>and (as Gavin said) the energy (mass in a gravity field) mechanical equivalents are not the prime concern of this project...

Is this a consensus?


So, I'd like you to continue with your explanations....
Several posts ago, I asked you about the whole picture (not just the part. scheme).

How is yours output unit supposed to operate?

You are mentioning that the real thing is - indeed -  happening in this "output unit".

Buoyancy... Mind you, the buoyancy is just a gravity "in disguise"....



Looking forward to hear more,
Cheers!

[GavinPalmer1984]

@GavinPalmer1984

This is not about the time it takes to empty the containers. It is only about the time it takes to make the lift. That is the only work here.

Try this little quiz I made.

Put the following in order of least to most energy required.

1) Lifting 1000kg - 1 meter high - in one second
2) Lifting 1000kg - 1 meter high - in three seconds
3) Lifting 1000kg - 1/2 meter high - in one second
4) Lifting 1000kg - 1/2 meter high - in one half second

Hope this will get the point across.

This does bring up a valid point in that more energy is required to lift the masses at faster rates.  But If we assume that the partitions have much time to rise, then the system can work.  The trick is transferring the work of the output unit to the lifting of the partitions in an intelligent way... I know it can be done.  (I will put up a new link explaining how to decrease the work of the partitioning even more... previously mentioned concerning partitions within a tank)

Think about it this way... The distance is decreased by increasing the partitions.  Lets assume that we want to lift the partitions in 3600 seconds.  As that distance decreases, the amount of energy needed to lift those partitions will also decrease.

Thank you for bringing this point up, as I have overlooked it previously.  I will have a link to another video up within 4 days, outlining the benefits of using intelligently designed partitions within a separate container of liquid... possibly decreasing the mass which is lifted to that of 2 * M/n.  Each partition would be lifted by an opposing buoyant force.

And so that I address wattsup's point directly, the design will have to allow the energy from the output unit to be expended over a large amount of time... and I know this is possible.

So yes, time is a bigger consideration than I have previously accounted for, but I have already thought of an idea to efficiently convert the output unit energy into a usable source of resetting the partitions (no matter how many partitions you use)

Thank you wattsup... please continue your efforts with myself.  And as a note to others who have something for me, it seems that the quiz style remark sparked my ability to understand where the author is coming from.