Gravity Powered Generator
transforms power of gravity into electric current
What the difference between this invention and existing power
Wind and Solar generators dependant on weather, they will never
become reliable. Hydro Energy contrary is extremely reliable but
reached its limit – we can not build more dams. Nuclear Energy -
first thing comes to mind - Time Bomb.
Au contraire, Gravity Powered Generator does not produce any
harmful emission; it can be installed in your basement, no need
for ugly transmission lines. It works on Earth will work on
Mars; gravitational field on the moon probably is not strong
Can you buy this generator for your home?
Since Canadian government refused to patent this invention
further development stopped - it will take some more nuclear
disasters like Chornobyl's or Fukushima's before you will
install it in your basement to power and heat your home.
Can it be used on road vehicles?
Yes, after a slight modification the invention will replace
internal combustion engines. It will not cause CO2 (carbon
dioxide aka greenhouse gas) emission or any environmental
hazards. Unlike electric vehicles it will not require lengthy
recharging or battery disposal.
Picture visualises the prototype work cycle.
Weight of the balance (blue circle) is equal to the weight of
both counterbalances (red circles). Also length of brown and blue
lines representing levers are equal. Black points in the middle
of the circles show their centers of mass. Black points
separating brown and blue lines stand for fulcrums (pivoting
When blue circle in its extreme upper or low position counter
balances also on their extremities but on the opposite side. At
this moment entire system is in equilibrium and can freely
rotate around horizontal axis.
Now let’s assume that friction is negligible and the blue circle
at the bottom. Some "mysterious" force kicked it upwards, as
shown on the picture - leverage ratio is not equal anymore. Red
circles are lifting the blue one until the system regains its
equilibrium but this time blue circle got to the top.
Because of regained equilibrium it does not take much work to
flip the system, as well, we do not need induced current to do
it. Let the blue circle (aka balance aka moving part of linear
generator) gain some momentum and pass over equilibrium point -
the system flips on its own. How to do it with minimal losses
not in the scope of this page.
Multiple tests run on the prototype have shown that machine
does not work if at the positions of equilibrium angle between
lever and horizontal (rotation) axis surpasses 30°. The heavier
is the machine - the more power it produces, its efficiency
varies between 17.3 % and 7.9 % (at 30° and 20° respectively).
Efficiency was calculated using Newton-Leibniz formula.
Theoretically the highest net efficiency can be reached at 45°
Very few scientists dare to doubt
conservation of energy law, doing so tarnishes reputations and
destroys carriers. Nevertheless, a simple
test run on this gyroscope disproves it.
"This law of conservation of energy is not something we have
derived from basic physics principles. Rather, it is a law based
on countless experiments. Scientists and engineers have never
found an exception to it. Energy simply cannot magically appear
or disappear." (Jearl Walker, David Halliday, Robert Resnick
(2014) Fundamentals of Physics, tenth edition, Cleveland State
University, Pages 195-196)
Being kids we all played with a gyroscope and you must remember
how much harder it is to tilt or flip a rotating toy than a
non-rotating one. Now let’s think like adults. The only
difference between resting and rotating gyroscopes is the
rotation. In this particular case, RPM is proportional to
kinetic energy. So when we flip it some of that energy must be
lost due to resistance to our hands. This is what conservation
of energy is about.
Description of the test: Two identical gyroscopes with
equal RPM one left along to come to its full stop another we
flip and turn over and tumble until it stops (one gyroscope will
suffice either). Conservation of energy tells us that the one
left along must take more time to stop than the other.
It doesn't take sophisticated equipment to replicate the test,
any kind of electrical gyroscope and a chronometer with one
second precision is enough. To get a better idea about the acting forces
do it barehanded. Big surprise awaits you …
P.S. In both cases the time is equal, if conservation of
energy were correct it would never had happened.
As you know, for the past 50-60 years there
was no major breakthrough in physics mostly due to relativity
and conservation of energy - physicists restricted themselves to
those assumptions and keep hitting ubiquitous dead-ends. Above,
I clarified what is wrong with conservation of energy - let’s
take a look at relativity.
Long before Albert Einstein, time delay has been suggested by
Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, Lorentz’ Equations describe how
moving in spaceship will slow passage of time, his formulas
along with Lorentz Factor shaped foundation of special
relativity. YouTube movie provides simple and algebra-free
In 1905 Einstein took Lorentz work further, suggested two
postulates and published his General Relativity Theory.
1. The laws of physics are the same for observers in all
inertial reference frames. No one frame is preferred over any
2. The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c = 299 792
458 m/s in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.
Take a second look at the clock from the
movie. If it is stationary, the light that hits the mirror goes
at 90° but inside the moving spaceship the angle is different.
Light wave sections of the corresponding angles are different -
it is not the same event - different photons, different
distance, different time. Consequently, Lorentz equations are
meaningless. Shall I remind you that special and general
relativity based on those equations?
Now, let’s take a look at the reference frame
equality. Einstein stated - "the laws of physics are the same
for observers in all inertial reference frames. No one frame is
preferred over any other" - It was another wrong assumption.
There is no ultimate reference frame in the universe, instead
every point has its own inertial reference frame, where one or
all three axis go through the center of dominant gravitational
It sounds complicated? Look at the picture. Green disc is
rotating; the red one is motionless relatively to the ground. In
this system only green disc has centrifugal force (call it
centripetal force if you wish). We can look at this system the
other way - green disc as stationary (reference frame) red disc
and ground rotating instead. If relativistic suggestion were
correct we would have centrifugal force on the red disc and on
the ground. Good luck to measure it on the red disc.
Think about Earth, Moon or even Mars - Their gravitational
fields are dominant below, on the surface and certain distance
in the space. For any point in those "spheres" we can determine
true reference frame using centers of those gravitational
This post is still in development, comeback for updates and
re-examination of proofs supporting the theory ...