new powerfull gravity turbine at perpetual motion

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Pirate,

Are we talking about some un-patented device then??  I'd LOVE to know more about this!

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

Hans:
We attempted to obtain a patent in the very early 80's.  After a cost of over $10,000, our attorneys informed us that the Patent Office said it is not a "significant improvement" over the standard coil spring and could not be patented. This was, of course, ridiculous.  In 1993 my company was contacted by attorneys for a large corporation who actually did obtain a patent on the ceramic coil springs (1992 I think issued) and we were told to cease and desist making ours.  Our attorney pointed out to them that since we did it first many years before they applied for their patent, and our springs were published in advertisements and articles for many years prior, they could not make us comply. Also, since, to obtain a patent you have to be the inventor, and we had actually made the samples for them that they submitted to the patent office, their patent was null and void.  Too bad for them.

All this, of course, has nothing to do with overunity.  I was just trying to give Osama some encouragement about continuing his explorations no matter what the nayayers might say. I am really enjoying this site.

Bill

[gaby de wilde]

The laws of thermodynamics where writen by ignorant idiots. They just got out of bed one day and decided that the best thing to do is to keep telling people they are going to fail mizzerably.  But never looked at any of the evidence.

Outside religion there is no "just because". I should note that 99% of the sientists in history had strong affiliation with some church. Only the last few 100  years they started accepting people's mindess drivel for facts in religion. Before those days the church tried to figure things out. Not for the public but for their own library.

Either we will find a good alternative power source or we all die? there is no option 3. If that means we are already dead on paper we need to figure out a new way to write things down. no?



That's the part that will never work! Seems one hell of a lot more convincing as to claim gravity engines cant work because some idiot preaching nonsense dogmas. Kelvin said heat engines didn't work either. I don't see why we are so attached to the rest of his denial. He was a liar, a thief and a cheat?

new gravity wheel and turbine theory( free energy)
i found out a new design of a gravity wheel and turbine ,use all its mass at one side of the wheel rotating round its axle and convert 95% from its mass potential energy to generat kinetic energy using less than 5% of its mass power for friction and regenerate or reconstruct its mass.
it's a new working theory , very simple and logical , so we can prove it, and calculate its output energy , just by its design
it's a perpetual motion and gravity as a new sorse of energy that using newton law not against it or violent it.
and now why we don't use gravity power as a renewable and clean energy?
i see a lot of this gravity wheel and motor at the following sites
http://www.fuellesspower.com/6_Gravity2.htm

This engine is using electrical pulses. They are mostly focused on marketing but they show no video.

...At that point a very high efficient / free energy solenoid coil kicks in and pushes the arms back up into a perfect balanced position and they continue to rotate back to the 12:00 position....

This is an interesting trick. It means the device indeed uses gravity to spin but it uses a coil to build up the gravitational potential. This is good enough to put it in a store and sell it as-if gravity powered. The pulse system is interesting but not using gravity as it's source.

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Gravity_Motors

I like Bob Kostoff's machine, he is using compressed air, he does claim the device makes it's own air pressure.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6817180-claims.html

Most complicated explanation. I don't think it was his intention to explain how it worked. I think he patented the construction. The device mimics natural circulation. Very Schauberger. :-)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328724.html?c=on#c136644

This seems like the patent above, a heat engine making it's own heat.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5637

Interesting forum. This is the link to the innovation.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/new/aaaaBBBAACAAAa.htm

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/conference/Weinfelden/
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hfrnrgen.htm

Hamel is my favorite 

http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm

ah, ?ther magic. 

http://www.rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006107313
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7134283.html
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/2depalma.html
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html
http://www.free-energy.ws/
http://www.eagle-research.com/fenergy/gravity.html
http://64.233.183.104/search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lD_65ggChs
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enEG232EG232&q=gravity+motor
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Andy_Gravity-Magnet_Motor
http://www.evert.de/eft786e.htm
http://www.gravitymotor.net/
http://www.skdynamics.com/gravitymotor/index.htm
i think most of those designs are very good but not complete , and the one who do that must catch the my opinion true theory of how to get energy from gravity ,or most of them must catch my design wheel from a long time ago!
but i don't know why they didn't? why there isn't uses of a working gravity turbine until now?
if we have a good design for a perpetual motion and already we have the gravity power , then we must use them to generat energy.
maybe i'm the lucky one !
ok, no problem of whatever i think about . my new design is not like any of what i found in those sites it is completly different , and powerfull .
it is a new source of renewable energy.that use whatever amount of mass you need at only one side and one position of the wheel in a perpetual motion design.the same as what used with water and wind wheel and turbine ( one amount of force at one side  maybe one position of the wheel) . it's a relation between potential power , and in the other side the power that effect the mass to make it as a potential power.
i think that ,
what was a dream before, today become a true.

how can i put my invention at the right way for common use ,

I don't think there is a good way, every marketing approach has been tried with the most ridiculous results. I would try emailing a few people for second opinions and get some help to try build something.

at last i 'm sure there is no mistake in my wheel and it's logicaly as the same like water turbine or wind turbine.
i keep searching for my new theory and design at net sites from 4 months without any positive similar design , what it means!!!!?

thank you ,and sorry for my bore language ,

usama mohamed salah

I have a few gravityengine research projects (ducktape popsicle sticks and paperclips etc). So far it looks to me like lifting an object costs only a fraction of the energy available when dropping it. You get no guarantee however and no thought police licence.

I got optimistic long after discarding the whole gravity engine concept. My website is about magnetmotors [link], I tried to ignore all the gravity claimants. But it's much to interesting to ignore. It's practically the same thing as using permanent magnets only gravity doesn't have as much complicated features as magnetism.

I've only managed to run one prototype for a few hours one time, I never got it to resonate like that again. It was quite funny to see it run down in 15 min the second time. lol

But my best concept is not based on a resonant system. I could give you the details but I'm not 100% sure and people will flame me while not saying anything I can use. After over a year of getting flamed for my ideas this sounds like a much more workable approach. I've had enough, I'm turning into a whining crybaby myself from interacting with whining crybabies.

I do want to encurage everyone to look much deeper into gravity. Below is the general theory, it's very different from my 2 devices.

A balanced beam

o-----------------/\----------------o

We move 1 of the weights.

----o-------------/\----------------o

And we get rotation for this horizontal motion. It will almost reach this postion.

o-----------------/\------------o----

Before the beam is horizontal the angular momentum may assist shifting the weight back to the edge.

We apply a force to shift the weight sidewards it resists like it's horizontal but, but it's angularly moving upwards.

o-----------------/\----------------o

It may thus drop upwards!

The amount of angular momentum of course depends on the speed of the device.

The device needs to slowdown close to standstill when gravity is doing the work, then it needs to accerate to make the angular momentum take over. We then add some wings and use the air drag to move the weight.

This device shows the principal, it's (obviously) also a windmill.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2OwSAAAAEBAJ

Patent number: X247
Issue date: Apr 30, 1799

I'm not saying it is not going to work if you put some effort in it.  If you don't, yes then it will never work.

Not doing anything => no results

It's impossible to have results before effort. And if you do obtain them they don't mean anything to you.

Or are people in the 17th century so much more intelligent as we are today? eh? For starters, his handwriting is like 1000 times more pretty as mine. That part I'm sure I will never learn.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Bill and all,

Thanks for telling me the story of your ceramic spring. It is funny how arbitrary the USPTO is at times. Hare brained ideas with outrageous unproven claims get a patent where something that works in the real world goes begging for protection.

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

Hans:

Yes, I agree.  I don't believe in our patent system for many reasons. I did learn a lot during that experience.  I also learned that if you are actually granted a patent, you have to defend it.  Sounds reasonable but suppose 100 people jump your patent and you only have the financial resources to sue 10 of them.  your patent then goes...Poof.  You have to defend ALL cases of infringement or you lose your patent rights.  This was all explained to me by my attorney.  I like the idea of sharing any break-through events with the world.  Anyone with a workable idea will have a headstart on it anyway and would make enough money to make it worth while.  I am still in the process of reading the back posts on here and I am learning a lot. Thanks to all that have posted and who are adding to my education in this most interesting of fields.

Bill