Is there proof gravity can not be a energy source?

[Omnibus]

Both names, that in Syria and the other in Australia are Armenian. I can only guess they did what Kapanadze is trying to do -- look for opportunities outside of their countries thinking it would be different. It isn't. Probably only worse.

As for who's to blame, I don't think it's only the mainstream. The participants in the OU movement, many of them, are mostly to blame. The secrecy, games, pipe dreams of riches and outright fraud. All this mixture harms the movement to no end. I wonder if that karra motor couldn't be sized down to fit a lab table for a demonstration at universities. Yildiz is the closest to that but you see how secretive he is too, only allowing partial inspection of the device. It could be that these folks are just not certain in what they're showing but want very much financing.

[brian334]

So far no one has offered any proof that gravity all by itself can not be a energy source.

[Omnibus]

So far no one has offered any proof that gravity all by itself can not be a energy source.

Funny you should continue this after so much explanation. Are you one of those who just don't get it?

[ResinRat2]

If a weight is resting on the ground and I lift it to a height of 10 ft. I have performed work to get it to that height. If I then release it and allow it to drop back down to the ground again the total displacement (from its original height on the ground) is zero. Therefore, by definition, the net amount of work is zero.

All you are doing is reversing the process if you want to use gravity as an energy source. You need to lift something to a higher elevation to create the potential energy. When you release it to gain your energy you again return to your original elevation and the amount of work is zero.

This is why gravity cannot give you back more energy than you put in. This is why you cannot run a motor off of gravity. The most you get back is what you put in (assuming 100% efficiency.)

I can't think of any simpler way to explain it.

RR2

[Omnibus]

If a weight is resting on the ground and I lift it to a height of 10 ft. I have performed work to get it to that height. If I then release it and allow it to drop back down to the ground again the total displacement (from its original height on the ground) is zero. Therefore, by definition, the net amount of work is zero.

All you are doing is reversing the process if you want to use gravity as an energy source. You need to lift something to a higher elevation to create the potential energy. When you release it to gain your energy you again return to your original elevation and the amount of work is zero.

This is why gravity cannot give you back more energy than you put in. This is why you cannot run a motor off of gravity. The most you get back is what you put in (assuming 100% efficiency.)

I can't think of any simpler way to explain it.

RR2

You may think you have explained it but you haven't. When you're lifting a thing above ground at certain height that thing not only has potential energy but also kinetic energy. If you leave that thing at rest at that height the upon letting it go back to the ground it only gives off energy equal to its potential energy. Therefore, the balance you're talking about isn't at all there.

Another example is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# Unlike what is seen in the vid, if the weight is attached directly at the rim the same gravitational potential energy won't be enough for even one full turn. In the vid that same potential energy causes almost three turns.

And yet another example, CoE which you invoke with your example contradicts the most fundamental equations of theoretical mechanics -- the Hamilton equations -- as I have shown.

Of course, the above has nothing to do with confusing force with energy as is the topic at hand.