Hi all,
I have an innovation which produce energy from gravitation. No need to worry about weather conditions (wind, sun).
Just set up the Gravitator box (big, small) and it will produce kinetic energy that can be transform to something else.
I don't want to comersialized it myself or neighter get patent for it. Actually I don't want anyone get patent for it.
Now I want this innovation to be tested. Personally I don't have time or possibilites to do this myself.
Any suggestion how shoud I proceed with this?
The innovation is described at http://gravitator.org
br,
Gravitator
Greetings Gravitator
From what I have seen, yours is just a long line of attempts of the same thing. Even though not exactly the same but it has not been proven by you predecessors to work. There are always factors when dealing with water,oil, and others. My second design was with a light oil and IMO it is the best version out there but from experience of working with wheels I give it very low percent to work, which in other language of no chance, so I won't build it.
Quote from: Gravitator on September 05, 2008, 01:29:23 AM
Hi all,
I made 6.9.2008 some modification at http://gravitator.org.
I have done some homework at www.besslerwheel.com. From there I found from public forum following sentence:
"Bessler said that IF we can find a way to raise a heavy weight with a smaller weight, we have found the answer."
My idea for this is added at http://gravitator.org.
br,
Gravitator
Hi AB Hammer,
Thank you. And sorry about this delay in my answer. I looked your image (the oil system) at the address
you gave me at BesslerWheel.com. Looks really interesting and I can see really a lot of same elements
that I have in my. What I have been thinking lately is the movement of pistons. I think that the closed
systems try to find they balance as pairs where on the other side is a piston farther from central of wheel
than the opposite with moved liquid. These together can be (I guess, remember I'm not a professional
in this are) think as equal from balance point of view.
So I think that we have to think the Bessler's sentence "Bessler said that IF we can find a way to raise a
heavy weight with a smaller weight, we have found the answer." quite seriously. I have added today my
answer to this question at my site/documents. What I'm still thinking is the timing issue. If we can
raise a heavy weight with smaller weight how should we do the timing in blocking the liquid flow in this kind
of wheel? With this I mean that I think that the pairs have as alone a dead point. I think this can be solved
in theory two ways: The kinetic energy in the wheel will move the pair over the dead point or an other pair,
which is not in balance moves the other one away from this dead point.
Please remember, that I'm not a professional in this area so there might be some trivial mistakes in my thinking.
br,
-michael
Hi,
I don't know how to edit previous posts so I add a new one which tries to describe little bit more, what I wrote to AB Hammer.
Maybe attach image will describe little bit more about my thoughts of pistons, balance, timing etc.
In this picture the small weight have moved liquid from B2 to A2. I think it is obvious that the right side is heavier than left. So the Bessler's sentence is in this way achieved. The timing problem is that when liquid is moving from lover position to upper the wheel will turn too early - littel weight difference is enough to make this happen. And what I think with this is that in too early stage this will cause the problem that the system will hang. So as far as I understand the best situation would be that the wheel will turn after the desired amount of liquid have been moved up.
br,
Gravitator
The mistake in your thinking is that, in your illustrated design, you are not using a light weight to raise a heavy weight. You are using a heavy weight to raise a light weight, and yes, the system will 'hang' as you put it, at the position where the center of mass of all the weights together is directly under the axle.
A further mistake is thinking that you can get any energy out of such a system. You can't, because gravity is a conservative force. This means that the Potential Energy of a weight is only dependent on its height, not the path it took to get there. The work available from a weight falling from a certain height, is the same as the work it takes to get it up to that height. Regardless of the path taken. Your device complicates things a little because it has varying weights at varying moment arms, but the result is the same. You get out, what you put in.
Sorry.
What I mean with using light weight to lift up heavy weight is described in attach picture. In my understanding in x time all the liquid (e.g. water) have been moved up from B to A. In other words: 100 kg pressure + 100 kg negative pressure moved 10 000 liters (10 000 kg) water. In this the light weight is 100 kg and the heavy weight is 10 000 kg (water).
Of course, as you have drawn it, it will rotate in the other direction as long as the bottom tank is fuller than the top tank. And regardless of this, there is an equilibrium position where both weights push down equally on tanks that are equally full, with the total center of mass either at or below the axle. So the unit will "hang" at that point. This will likely be at the point where the 1-meter connecting tube is close to horizontal. Since you will have another set of tanks and weights mounted at 90 degrees, this will affect the hang point--the backwards thrust from one set of tanks will offset the forwards thrust from the other set, and the device will hang with the connecting tubes at close to 45-225 and 135-315 degrees. Put more sets on, the system still hangs at an equilibrium point.
You can't get over the fact that gravity is conservative. Clever geometries and intricate mechanisms won't help. The only way around this is to either change mass irreversibly (in which case you either run out or fill up, and stop) , or to add energy from outside the gravitating system.
TK is right on this one but ignore his other preach about conservative fields. He seems to have forgotten where he is ::).
My problem seems to be that I'll talk about one part of the system at the time. Maybe this image will help to understand what Im looking after.
The liquid flow will be blocked immediatly after the liquid have been moved from bottom tank to top.
br,
Gravitator
So how do we stick a 10 ton water tank on the end of a pipe anyway? :-\
Quote from: Gravitator on September 07, 2008, 10:34:02 AM
My problem seems to be that I'll talk about one part of the system at the time. Maybe this image will help to understand what Im looking after.
The liquid flow will be blocked immediatly after the liquid have been moved from bottom tank to top.
br,
Gravitator
Don't get discouraged. Instead of arguing with the pro skeptic(TK), just buy two collapsible water containers (camping type -$5.00), glue appropriate size weights to the side opposite the opening and attach a connecting hose to each opening. Glue side opposite weights to bottom of container boxes or buckets to reduce the side flexing. Set up as shown in your drawing.
For the first proof it doesn't even need a rotation mechanism. If that works then attach to a board with a lazy susan center mechanism, caster, chair swivel, etc.
If it doesn't work you'll have piece of mind, if it does show the world.
Good Luck,
Larry
PS: Any easier ideas welcomed.
Yep, I agree with LarryC. It's an easy experiment to do. I'd do it myself if I had any hope that it would work.
I may do it anyway and make another video. But you have to realize that this device maps directly onto the design of many other force-assisted gravity wheels, and it isn't really that unique.
All wheel designers seem to go through the same phases: they have an idea that weight-shift will run a wheel. Then they realize that some extra force is needed, so they install springs or magnets or siphons or suction weights, then when they realize these don't help as intended they install latches or valves...the next step is to install electromagnets driven by a generator on the shaft--and when that doesn't work we use batteries to power the electromagnets...and so forth...
I'm the arch-skeptic that's true, but the reason why is that I see a lot of really creative and bright people with good skills and resources, wasting them on ideas that have been tried many times (and haven't a prayer anyway for good theoretical reasons), when a little research and meditation might save a lot of time and effort.
LarryC: "Don't get discouraged.". :) No I don't. Actually I think it is good to have pro skeptics in discussions to argue with.
After that you know that all the aspects have been discussed and if an pro skeptic thinks that it is experiment time, I think the
idea is in quite good phase.
TK: "and it isn't really that unique." I understand. I just haven's seen them so it is quite difficult to me see these mappings.
The first one was AB Hammers model and it gave me a lot of to think about - "I won't build it", based on experience with wheels !?!?
Something to think about.
TK: "Then they realize that some extra force is needed". I started to think this also from AB's model. And my answer to this
is to stop the wheel and get this extra energy from gravitation by waiting more water to be lifted up.
TK: "a little research and meditation might save a lot of time and effort." Well, I have come to the end of my meditations
with my wheel. At the idea level I have a piece of mind. What comes to problems when building a proto (Marctwo:So how do we stick
a 10 ton water tank on the end of a pipe anyway?) is a diffrent story.
I have now updated my rethinked ideas at http://gravitator.org. Hopefully in easy to understand format ;)
I came across this video today, and I thought of this thread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fUlKBH1sY8
I just had a new idea about moving heavier weight up with light weight.
In my model the heavier weight is water that is lifted up in "in parts". If you want to use somethin else than liquid
is it possible to think that you split the heavier weight in parts and lift it up one part at a time? Don't know how
to do this but I think it could work in theory in similar way than lifting water from lower tank to upper...
I saw your oil tank spinning model. But was wondering how long would it take for the liquid to go from one tank to another with the tiny flow constriction. Presuming it takes 30 seconds, the rotation will then be 1 rpm !! Speed of a clock.
I know it's slow. In my mind the rotation speed is not the primary issue. The issue is to get some energy out from the wheel.
In my model this is possible. And in my thoughts this energy can be used e.g. as primary energy when producing
hydrogen using electrolysis. In my understanding the cost of electricity has been the problem. This way I think
it is maybe possible to reduce these costs. Who knows...
All.. Please excuse my first post being one of conceptual skepticism, but would not the fallacy with this model be the assumption that the "spokes" of the wheel are perfectly aligned with the stroke of the "pistons" in their respective chambers? In reality when the "full" chamber has reached the lowest point of it's kinetic potential, the "Spoke" is not vertical, but maligned relative to the vector from the point of rotation through the center of mass. This creates a scenario where the "weighted pistons" are loosing much of their potential because of the misalignment of the force of gravity on those weights with the actual angle of the required piston stroke. Additionally, since this is a symetrical design, any fluid transferred would not increase torque potential because it would be centered over the axis directly above the lower chamber..
JT
I have home tested Gravitator's water lifting and balance.
Some pictures of these tests can be found at http://gravitator.org/tests.html
Hope these pictures give some answers...
I have mention in this thread something about lifting heavy weight up "in parts". In this picture
there is one possible solution to do this. I hope the picture explains itself ;)
Shortly the idea is to move up 1500 kg with 1400 kg.
Simpler model of moving heavier weight up with light weight "in parts".
Quote from: Gravitator on September 15, 2008, 08:50:06 AM
Simpler model of moving heavier weight up with light weight "in parts".
Appears Phase 4 would only move 1400 KG back to shelf level, not to the pulley.
Regards, Larry
Phase 4 will only take the 1400kg half way up.
Interesting though.
You right, I posted this too early. Sorry.
Maybe this one is more realistic. The cable lengths are not exact as they should but I hope the idea can be still found.
Phase 4: The 2 750's are only 1/2 purchase so will not be able to lift more than 750kg.
I do find multi-purchase systems very interesting but in the end they still balance out the same as single purchase... no matter how complicated you make it.
By "purchase" Marctwo is referring to the moment arm. The pulleys act as simple levers. The torque available is the product of the horizontal distance from the weight to the fulcrum (axle) and the weight. For pulleys the arm is always the radius of the pulley. So the radius of your pulleys has to be taken into account. Say your inner wheel (pulley) is half the diameter of the outer pulley. Then the moment arm for weights suspended from it, is half that for weights hanging from the larger outer pulley.
The quantities that you should be working with are moments, not simple weights. Moment = weight x arm. Arm = radius, for pulleys.
Yes, cheers TinselKoala.
The 'purchase' I refered to is just the leverage ratio.
Thank you for your help.Learning by doing ;) Now I have gone little future with this idea and so far it looks like it might work.
IF my assumptom is near the right. Can anyone tell me how much will the 40 kg weight move if 100 kg moves 1 cm?
I noticed that I had a mistake in my thinking in previous post. In this version this mistake is fixed.
At the idea level I think this might work. In real life, who knows. :D
I speak for myself when I say I understand nothing of your drawing. You have to make it more clear, you refer to things that aren't there or are doubled please be clear if you want others to understand your thinking pattern.
Sorry. I try to explain it in words as actions from start point to end point.
The last post's picture describes the Start point.
1. 100 kg is 200 cm from ground and it is bound to pulley 1
2. 100 kg moves down and turns at the same time pulley 2 to the right
3. pulley two lifts first 40 kg weight up to 95 cm. At this point 100 kg is 152,5 cm from ground
4. 40 kg will be moved (eg. cannon ball will be rolled) on the shelf that is bind to pulley 3.
Pulley 3 is locked so it wont start to rotate.
5. 100 kg will continue moving down and it start to lift second 40 kg up.
6. when second 40 kg is lifted 95 kg 100 kg is 105 cm from ground. Second weight will be moved
to same shelf than first one.
7. After this 100 kg lifts the third (last) 40 kg 95 cm up and it will be moved to shelf
8. At this point 100 kg is on the fixed shelf which is 57,5 cm from ground and 120 kg (3x40 kg)
is lifted on pulley 3 shelf
9. Pulley 3 will be unlock. This make the Pulley 3 (120 kg on it) turn left.
10. Pulley 3 is bind to pulley 4. Pulley 4 is little bit smaller than pulley 1.
11. Pulley 4 turns pulley 1 left. This will lift the 100 kg up. The movement goes like this
Pulley 3 (120 kg on it) turns left
-> pulley 3 turns pulley 4 left
-> pulley 4 turns pulley 1 left. This will lift 100 kg up
-> pulley 1 turns pulley 2 left. This will make the cable which lifts up 40 kg weights
go back to ground
12. When 100 kg is back in start point (200 cm from ground) and the cable that lift 40 kg weights is
at start point the weights will be moved back to ground from pulley 3's shelf.
13. At this point "new shelf" is turned to 80 cm and pulley 3 is locked again.
14. Now the system starts from 1 again.
Hi,
I have been thinking really a lot one comment in this thread: "Any easier ideas welcomed."
In attached picture is one possible solution for this.
Here is a much better water motor.
I think.
http://uk.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=prophet2012
Rich
Improved version of the same idea i had in my previous post (too early post :( ).
The idea is keep more weight all the time on other side of wheel. In this picture there is always more
weight on right side. In short the idea is following
1. Think one tire as car tire. Inside this tire there is a "rubber tire" full of water
2. This rubber tire is compressed by an other tire so that there is always more water on the other side of "rubber tire"
Another very interesting idea. I like the way you think, Gravitator.
This kind of constant over balance doesn't promote movement though. Any movement will not help the centre or gravity come closer to a neutral resting point... so it just doesn't move.
However, using rubber and water as you are may give a little chaotic instability that could help somewhat. It'd be interesting to see this one in the flesh.
I was thinking too that it wont move, it is just standing water. If you divide the "rubber tier" into cells that are connected with
tube, then it might works. Below is a picture where I have added this idea.
This latest idea, I think, maps onto the "sponge wheel" which has been known for a while.
Keep them coming, though, Gravitator. You are thinking along very interesting lines, as Marctwo says.
"Blacksmith blower wheel" idea.
Hi Gravitator,
your lat drwing seems very promising.
It's similar to Kunio Hashimotor power generatin apparatus (US 20050039449).
Best wishes
AlanA
@Gravitator
You need to take a closer look at Bessler's MT60 and MT61
AlanA
Welcome to the forum. From another Alan. Great name! ;D
@ Alan
even thought the post is not for me.
What is Bessler's MT60 and MT61? Where can I find further information?
Thanks for the compliment.
@AlanA
Here is one address http://www.orffyre.com/drawings.html
Follow the line and click the MT
And you can look here at http://www.besslerwheel.com/
Here is another forum as well and other descriptions of Bessler
Bill who has orffyre.com is also a regular there.
There is allot of information out there on how not to do it. LOL But it is well worth reading.
@ AB Hammer
Interesting ideas. As far as I understand it seems to me that in these ideas all the "blowers"/modules are individual and there
are no connection between modules. The basic idea seems to be moving weight balance within one module and keep the system unstable in
this way. If I compare these ideas to "Blacksmith blower wheel" the main difference is that there are no "pairs of modules" in this
kind of way and the basic idea in "Blacksmith blower wheel" is to move the weight balance over the "whole system", not just in one
module or between pair of modules.
BTW, thank you for the interesting link!
@AlanA
Thank you for your comment and hint to this interesting patent.
It is quite much like "Blacksmith blower wheel" but there are some major differences.
In attach drawing I try to explain these differences against my understanding of "Kunio Hashimotor power generatin apparatus (US 20050039449)".
Best wishes,
Gravitator