Youtube video of gravity device principle.. ?

[GavinPalmer1984]

People are claiming that I can not reduce the distance below X, where I claim that the distance can be reduced to 2 * X / n.

Just view my clip and tell me what does not make sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIA2rZQgO_c

I do not think that people are grasping my point.  Do not approach this with a preconception.  I have had experts at the National Science Foundation tell me that the partitioning scheme is very intelligent.  Once you guys understand the partitioning scheme, it follows that a perpetual system may be created.

The guys at the NSF could not fathom a device which produces more energy than what is needed to reset it to the initial state.

[hansvonlieven]

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

G'day Gavin and all,

It is not a question of consensus, it is a question of physics. Your physics are wrong. When all is said and done to drop a gallon of water 1 m you have to lift that gallon of water 1 m to start the cycle afresh regardless of the number of partitions. There is no free energy in this. In fact, as others have correctly pointed out partitioning costs additional energy.

Hans von Lieven

BTW what is the National Science Foundation that has sanctioned your idea, surely not the US agency of the same name.

[GavinPalmer1984]

G'day Gavin and all,

It is not a question of consensus, it is a question of physics. Your physics are wrong. When all is said and done to drop a gallon of water 1 m you have to lift that gallon of water 1 m to start the cycle afresh regardless of the number of partitions. There is no free energy in this. In fact, as others have correctly pointed out partitioning costs additional energy.

Hans von Lieven

BTW what is the National Science Foundation that has sanctioned your idea, surely not the US agency of the same name.

The liquid only drops a distance of:

X / n

then is lifted a distance:

2 * X / n

And yes, the US NSF.  You guys should not assume that I am wrong.  I realize that I must convey my understanding to you, but please come into this with an open mind.  Go to my youtube post of partitioning and ask me questions instead of insisting I am wrong.

[mondrasek]

Gavin,

I'm with you on the partitions.  You are only dropping the entire X high column of water by a distance of one partition, or X/n.  You use this small drop to move the entire X high column of water *sideways*.  You can then return the water to it's original location if you raise it by 2 * X/n and allow it to drop X/n and shift sideways again. 

Really, you are not lowering the water level in the top half of the main container so much as shifting it sideways to a secondary container, leaving only half of the original container filled.  This has the same effect as lowering the water with regards to how the entire system is proposed to work.

But I'm still having trouble with how the rest of the system will work.  By adding the partitions you have effectively made many separate containers, not one big one through which the output unit can lower and flip.  If you are holding back the exact details of how this is designed to happen, I don't understand why.  But that is your prerogative.

M.

[GavinPalmer1984]

Mondrasek,

You got it!  The amount of work needed to empty and refill the container can be reduced to a very small amount.  The output unit produces a constant amount of energy.

I will be adding another video to show how we might decrease the energy needed to empty and refill the reservoir even more.  And finally, I will begin presenting specifics.  I will appreciate any help in discovering better designs.

Do you now see that perpetual motion is viable?  I want a group of people to help design, then build, a working system (possibly at a university).

Building and designing this thing as an individual is overwhelming.  I am merely the individual who brought up the feasible idea.  Everyone can help to create some final products.