Prototype Photograph | Contact


Gravity Powered Generator transforms power of gravity into electric current


What the difference between this invention and existing power suppliers?
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 enough.
Do we have a prototype?
Yes we do. Located on premises in Montréal, Canada. Due to lack of resources the prototype is not impressive enough for potential manufacturers, nevertheless it proves - the concept works …
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.

Concept Description


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 points).

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.

Replacing the balance (middle piece) with a Linear Generator allows gravity-into-electricity conversion ...

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 explanation.

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 other.
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 field.

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 fields.

This post is still in development, comeback for updates and re-examination of proofs supporting the theory ...


© Images and text published on this site ARE NOT copyright protected, under condition that each reuse explicitly acknowledges the priority