Sometimes you bump into a situation whereby your common sense tells you that 'this' should be possible, while the experts tell you that 'this' is old hat and impossible.
This was the situation I found myself in when in 1980 I proposed to use the gravity as a source of energy. I was told that what I proposed was a perpetual mobile and this was impossible. I was puzzled: what had a perpetual mobile to do with the gravity? I was really ignorant. (My background is biological sciences). This ignorance was good, because then you start to investigate. On the other hand if you think you know, while in fact you don't, you are not prepared to look any further.
So, I looked up in a library what was called a 'perpetual mobile' and got a shock of amazement. Surely they had to be kidding to call that a perpetual mobile? What I found were contraptions attempting to use the gravity as energy source, but all failed to do so. In other words they were not even mobiles, let alone perpetual mobiles. Here are a few examples:
Figure 1. Perpetual mobiles
An attempt is made to use the gravity by increasing leverage at the right side of the device. This is done either through extending the lever-arm or through rolling balls. However, at the left side is always more weight either through more hammers or more balls. So, there is balance and nothing happens.
So far harmless attempts without success. But then established science took charge and defined a perpetual mobile based on these contraptions. It seems that the clever boys of that time ignored the fact that the devices they were looking at were not at all perpetual mobiles. Nonetheless they defined a perpetual mobile as a device that gives unlimited energy output without any energy input. Here is such a definition.
'Some device that could produce useful external work without an outside source of energy. It is important to realize that a perpetual motion machine must have some sort of cyclic operation and therefore be capable of repeating its process indefinitely, producing useful external work each cycle.'
(Franzo H. Crawford, 1963. Heat, Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics.)
So, they based their definition on failures and therefore their definition is also a failure. If they wanted a sound definition, then they should have stuck with physics and nothing else. For example: a perpetual mobile is a converter of perpetual energy. Or, a device with perpetual energy input and output. What else could it be?
Does such a thing exist? The answer is: oh yes, definitely. Mankind has invented a way to tap into the gravity since centuries via the waterwheel. But poor me, here I bumped into another bogus scientific controversy. I was told that it was impossible to use the gravity as source of energy as it was all solar energy, the gravity was not involved.
Here is such an evaluation:
'The energy from the waterwheel ultimately comes from the sun. The sun's energy evaporates water from the seas and elsewhere. This water vapour is then deposited again as snow or rain on the mountains and runs downhill to the sea again, in the course of which the energy may be tapped for work by a waterwheel.'
Take note, that nothing in this evaluation is said about what causes this depositing of water. Small wonder I got more and more puzzled by the illogical thinking of many scientists and engineers, and I also began to understand why we have still not been able to crack the energy problem. If they had only applied physical laws as they were taught, they would have stayed clear of a morass of sloppy thinking to protect the Energy Conservation Principle.
Was it not the genius of Newton who taught us that if you want to move an object, then you must apply a force to it? If there are more forces acting on this object, then the resultant force will determine the speed and direction the object will take. When the force acting on the object stops, the object will continue indefinitely at the speed and direction it received from that force. The object will not change direction unless another force acts on it in a different direction. Friction is a force which can bring the object to a rest.
Are there any compelling reasons why we should not apply these Newtonian physics to the water cycle?
What is this water cycle? Here we go again: water evaporates at the surface of land and oceans and goes up and up and up. This continues until the water vapour starts to condense somewhere high up. First little droplets are formed, but when they become bigger and bigger, then the gravity gets hold of enough mass to pull them down as rain, hail or snow. So, the upward trip of the water was caused by the direct influence of the sun and the downward trip (take note: a change of direction, so according Newton a new resultant force is acting) by the direct influence of the gravity. Now, this last fact is denied by our 'experts.'
But on my question how the sun can cause a downward pull I still have to receive an answer. Again we are dealing here with very sloppy thinking. What the clever boys probably mean is that as the amount of water going up and down is the same, that therefore both forces, the sun and the gravity acting on the same mass, must provide the same amount of energy. This too is not the case, but let us follow their thinking. Even if you were dealing up and down with the same amount of energy, then this does not necessarily mean that you are dealing up and down with energy of the same nature. Again: a change of direction means a new net force acting on the object.
How do they eliminate the gravity? The clever boys claim that when water is lifted by the sun, the gravity is doing negative work (obstructing the lifting). Yes, they tell you this negative work is -mgh. And, when the water comes down the gravity's work is +mgh. So, in an up/down trip the gravity is eliminated and therefore not involved. It seems to escape them that negative work does not exist and therefore their reasoning is colossal nonsense, total bunkum.
If they only would look up the definition of 'Work' they would find: work is done when a body is moved by a force and displaced in the direction of that force. A force by the way is a push or a pull and obviously we are dealing here with the resultant force or net force, or unbalanced force (all these terms are used in the different text books) doing this work. This definition does not state that work is done when the displacement of the body is in opposite direction of that force. That would indeed be negative work. But as the definition stands as it is, negative work does not exist. Work is a scalar (a number) with no direction attached to it.
So, what is really going on in an up/down round trip? To start with: when a body is lifted then the upward force must be greater than the downward pull, else the body would remain on the ground. Let us call this upward force ma and the downward pull mg. To find the resultant force upwards you subtract mg from ma. This gives you the resultant upward force Ma. The resultant upward work would then be Mah, whereby h indicates the height of the lift or, the size of the displacement of the body.
When the body drops then there is only one force involved, the gravity, assuming that from that particular height atmospheric factors are negligible. So, the downward resultant force is Mg. And the downward work is Mgh. So, nowhere negative work in sight.
Now, I do understand how the clever boys invented negative work. This is done through what is called a 'scalar product analysis.' In that case they find first the individual works contributing to the final resultant work. So, they calculate for each contributing force its work. And then they add and subtract these contributing works to arrive at the final resultant work. If they only did that, then they would arrive at the correct resultant work upwards, and the correct resultant work downwards. But the clever boys don't do this in a round trip.
So, what are they really doing? They rip an individual work -mgh from the scalar product analysis upwards. Now, a scalar product has only meaning within its scalar product analysis. It is a calculating thing and only within the calculation it is part of, it has meaning. But the clever boys ignore this. So, they rip a scalar product away from its upward scalar product analysis. And hold your breath, then they subtract this upward scalar product from the resultant work of the downward trip. This results in MGH-mgh, and to make the confusion total they rewrite it as mgh-mgh. See, they say the gravity is not involved in a round trip. This is an unprecedented disregard of the correct procedures.
In a round trip you have two scalar product analyses, one for the upward trip and one for the downward trip. If you want to compare the upward trip with the downward trip then you must compare Mah with Mgh and nothing else. And then it becomes obvious that the gravity is very much involved in a round trip.
So, the missing link in the energy puzzle is the gravity.
The Energy Conservation Principle
Why insist on this quasi physics contradicting Newtonian physics? Because since the 19th century scientist have been indoctrinated into the Energy Conservation Principle. This has almost reached the status of a religious dogma. In a textbook I found the following quote and I am still not sure whether it was only meant as a flippant remark:
"A remark of Poincare is often quoted to the effect that if we ever found the conservation law of energy appearing to fail we would recover it by inventing a new form of energy."
This is precisely what they have done. For a start you do not invent new forms of energy at will, what they did was invent a new name. This new name was 'potential energy.' And then they claimed that when a body drops from a height potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, which means energy of motion. Well…what does potential energy really stand for? 'Potential kinetic energy' of course. A body at some height has the potential to get kinetic energy by dropping. That's all it means. So, potential kinetic energy becomes kinetic energy by dropping to the ground. Just joggling with names. Meanwhile, the real source of energy, the gravity, has been eliminated via negative work. What a mess!
But if you dare to question the validity of this energy conservation principle then you are excommunicated as a scientist. I found a great deal of fear at universities by questioning this dogma. Only one scientist wrote me that the Energy Conservation Principle has never been proven, but is generally believed to be true.
This energy conservation law states that energy is never lost but only converted from one form of energy into another form. This means that during an energy conversion one from of energy diminishes and the other from of energy increases by the same amount
But this does not happen when the gravity is involved. The gravitational pull is determined by the mass of earth. Planets with a different mass have a different gravity. Is our earthly gravity in any way diminished by all the rain, hail and snow coming down? Not one bit. Is the gravity diminished by all the leaves, berries, bananas, apples, pears, plums, peaches, oranges, mangos and coconuts falling to earth? Not one bit. But according to the energy conservation principle this should happen.
When the gravitational force moves a body, then some gravitational energy is converted into kinetic energy. As a result the gravitational energy should be reduced by the same amount of energy that gives the body its motion, according this principle. But this does not happen. No matter how much water flows through a river, the gravity does not change. This goes right against the energy conservation principle. In other words this principle is not universally valid.
The energy conservation principle is a generalisation of the second law of thermodynamics. Through this great invention of the steam engine in the 19th century thermodynamics was directly linked to mechanics and this is probably the reason that this second law was generalised.
The gravity is not the only force where the energy conservation principle does not apply. Permanent magnets can also be used as often as you wish without weakening or changing their strength. Their magnetic force is determined by the parallel positioning of its iron particles and nothing else. As long as the parallel packing of the iron particles does not change, the magnet's magnetic strength does not change, no matter how often it attracts other iron bodies.
A free lunch
Since the parsimonious 19th century we are told that a 'free lunch' does not exist. And when they tell you this they look at you as if you were a morally depraved creature to even think about a free lunch (am a sucker for a freebie and I want more of it!). According to them a free lunch is not only a moral outrage, but wanting it is the pits.
However, the waterwheel is precisely that: a free lunch. Do we need to manufacture water? No, that was delivered with the earth. Do we need to generate a gravitational pull? No, that too came with the earth. What about solar heat? That also came free of charge. So, bring your plate (the waterwheel) and the lunch is yours (free energy). The only costs you have is the construction of your plate: the waterwheel/turbine and the positioning of it in the river. Or if it is part of a dam, then you have to construct this dam first. But as to the running costs, that is mainly a question of maintenance costs.
Here is such an old fashioned perpetual mobile: an overshot waterwheel.
Figure 2. An overshot waterwheel.
The water is caught into the paddles causing an extra weight at the right side of the wheel and this causes the wheel to turn. It clearly illustrates that the so called impossibility of using the gravity as a source of energy because of this nonsensical round trip theory is just empty talk.
If I had to give the waterwheel a more scientific name, then I would call it a hydro-gravity turbine.
An electro-gravity turbine/flywheel
Let us have a closer look at my invention called an 'electro-gravity turbine/flywheel.' It imitates the hydro-gravity turbine. And in the end the electro-gravity turbine becomes a flywheel as well.
First we start again with some basic physics.
You find here a picture of a hydrostatic beam balance. In the left picture (A) there is balance because the weight hanging down is the same as the weight on the right scale.
Figure 3. An hydrostatic beam balance.
But when you place the hanging weight into a glass of water this results in an imbalance (B). How come? Is the water pushing the weight upwards? To find out we snip the fishing line from which the weight is hanging. Result: the weight dives to the bottom of the glass. So, the weight of the object is far to heavy to be carried by the water.
Still, when the weight was hanging from the beam in the water, it seemed that the water was carrying the weight. However, most of the weight was carried by the counterweight at the other end of the beam. The upthrust of water carried only a little bit of it's total weight and this caused the imbalance.
A closer look at that weight hanging in water reveals that two forces are acting on it. First of all the gravitational pull and then a little upthrust of water. The upthrust of water eliminates a little bit of the gravitational pull on that weight. This results in a reduced gravitational pull on that weight. You could call it an apparent weight. At the other end of the beam we have now an overweight. So, the little upthrust at left creates a downward pull at right. This is the core idea of the invention.
Let us apply the hydrostatic beam balance physics to a lever: a beam with equal arms rotating vertically on a horizontal spindle. At the end of each lever arm is a magnet-weight attached with the same magnetic pole directed outwards.
Around the left circumference of the circle made by the rotating lever is vertically placed a bent iron shield. From here I shall call this circular path of the rotating lever a wheel, as this lever with magnet-weights could be part of a real wheel. This wheel-thing makes it easier for me to explain the invention.
So far we have a bent iron shield at the left circumference of the wheel with magnet-weights. This is done in such a way that the air gap between shield and wheel diminishes upwards. This shield becomes magnetic by induction from the magnet-weights which are electro-magnetic. The combined magnetic field is weak. This is essential.
Figure 4. A lever rotating on a horizontal spindle + a bent iron shield
It is well-known that when two attracting magnets get closer, that their combined magnetic field gets stronger. This is the case when one of the magnet-weights passes the 6 o'clock position and comes into the magnetic field with the shield. As a result through the diminishing air gap between magnet-weight and shield that magnet-weight will undergo a weak upward force. Just as the upthrust of water in the hydrostatic beam balance.
Figure 5. Magnet-weight and shield with combined magnetic field
To check that we are indeed dealing with a weak magnetic force, you could take away the counter magnet-weight at the other end of the beam. As a result the magnet-weight in the magnetic field should come crashing down to the 6 o'clock position.
If the magnet-weight on the other hand would not come crashing down and stay in its position, then this would indicate that the magnetic field is fairly strong. However, this is not the situation we are after and it would no longer be the invention. It is essential to get a weak magnetic field for creating an apparent weight into the magnet-weight. This is the sole function of this weak magnetic field.
Close to the top end of the shield, the shield starts to run parallel to the wheel circumference. This is needed because if the shield would continue to get closer to the wheel circumference, then the wheel magnet-weight would come to a halt in the 12 o'clock position. It could not pass that point.
When a magnet-weight reaches the top end of the shield, which is running parallel with the circumference of the wheel, a current inversion takes place in the electro-magnet which changes the magnetic attraction into repulsion. This repulsion is not stronger than the rest of the weak magnetic field. Its sole function is to let the magnet-weight pass the 12 o'clock position.
Take note: the function of the repulsion is not to propel the wheel/lever. Therefore, perhaps, the current to the magnet-weight could be only interrupted so that the magnetic field would disappear to let the magnet-weight pass.
If we change the single lever into a spoked wheel with magnet-weights then we have arrived at a similar situation as the overshot waterwheel.
Figure 6. Invention and overshot waterwheel
At the left side the magnet-weights in the magnetic field are getting a light upward pull resulting in an apparent weight or underweight. Each underweight becomes at the other end of its lever an overweight. So, each magnet-weight at the right side gets pulled down by the gravity.
A magnet-weight coming down from 12 o'clock gets on its way the acceleration of the gravity. And this happens all the time. This constant acceleration by the gravity would eventually result in a run-away thing.
At a set speed the electricity to the magnet-weights is cut out. Now the overweight in the right magnet-weights disappears and the wheel is no longer accelerated by the gravity. This results in a flywheel. Eventually this flywheel slows down and at another set speed the electricity to the electro-magnets is cut in again. Now the overweight in the right magnet-weights is restored and the wheel becomes again a turbine and starts to speed up again.
The turbine/flywheel is positioned on a horizontal shaft together with a starting motor and a generator. The starting motor commences the circular motion that gets the generator going. Once the generator produces electricity, a small part is fed back to the magnet-weights of the turbine-flywheel. This establishes the apparent weight and overweight in the magnet-weights and the turbine/flywheel starts to tap into the gravity. Then the starting motor can be switched off and the turbine/flywheel takes over.
If electricity is available, then the generator can be used as starting motor. But out in the field you need a diesel motor.
Figure 7. Diesel motor + invention + generator
It is obvious that the dimensions are very important. A big beefy generator and an teeny-weeny lightweight turbine/flywheel will never do. But here is where engineering comes in and I leave that to electro-mechanics. They know a few things a graduate in biological sciences just doesn't know.
Obviously, the larger the diameter of the vertical wheel, the greater the distance that a magnet-weight drops from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. And the larger this drop, the more you tap into the gravity. So, a small proto-type would not be very effective as the drop would be so small.
I have sent my invention to many government energy departments, to university departments of mechanics and electrical engineering and to individuals. And the standard evaluation was that it was a primitive electric motor.
'We view your invention as consisting of two basic elements plus auxiliary components. One basic element is a magnetic rotor partly surrounded by a magnetic shield. This basic element is, in common engineering terms, an electric motor.'
The derailment starts here with the word 'rotor.' The magnets of a rotor in an electric motor are tightly packed against the shaft and the magnetic fields are strong. Once they use the word rotor, they continue as if it were an electric motor. To make the difference clear between an electric motor and my invention I compared it with two children on a seesaw. But this never resulted in any follow up answer from them.
Figure 8. Seesaw
Another evaluation told me:
'Your invention is not compatible with fundamental physical principles. No machine can give an output power which is greater than the input power (I agree, I don't try to do that). The gravity force cannot be used for giving a continuous torque to a rotating body since the energy gained by lowering a body from a certain level is spent when the same body is lifted to the same level.'
The overshot waterwheel illustrates that the theories about an up/down round trip are rather irrelevant. And yes, the gravity can be used for giving a continuous driving torque to a rotating body. But when you point this out to them their reaction is silence.
What I started to understand was that there was a great unwillingness to evaluate the invention as presented. It was first distorted to a kind of electric motor, or you were told that the gravity could not be used for energy generating. With such an unintelligent and rigid approach no wonder the energy problem has still not been solved.
I have been sending my invention round to in total a few hundred people. I got around seventy replies in return and they were rather monotonous in their 'condemnation.' But through all their answers I started to understand where their thinking became so strangely illogical, till at last some one explained to me the 'round trip.' It took me a lot of studying more physics in many different text books to find out more about it. But in the end I found the errors in thinking.
As a result I have made a number of different presentations to get the message across. And from the different reactions I started to understand the resistance and fear my invention raised. Then I heard about Howard Johnson and his invention and also about his fate. By then it was 1985 and I decided that the time was not yet ripe. So, I stepped back.
But now in 2006/7 the time seems ripe. Particularly inspiring I found the film 'Who killed the electric motor car?' General Motors had developed an electric motor car and in the early 1990s electric motor cars appeared on the roads of California. But by the end of the 1990s General Motors took them back and scrapped them. (The cars could not be bought but only leased). So, now there is a large bunch of people working on making their own electric motor car. And with the Internet, circumstances look much better now.