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 will help to visualise the prototype work cycle:
a) weight of the balance (blue
circle, 10 kg)
is equal to the weight of two counterbalances (red circles, 5 kg)
b) lengths of brown and blue parts of the levers are
c) black points in the middle of the circles show
their centers of mass
d) black points separating brown and blue lines
stand for fulcrums (pivoting points)
e) shifting connection is in place between the
balance (blue circle) and the levers
When the blue circle is in extreme upper or low position, the
counter balances are also on their extremities, at this moment
entire system is in its equilibrium and can freely rotate around
the horizontal axis
For simplicity reason, let’s assume that friction is negligible.
When the blue circle is at the bottom we slightly kick 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 the blue circle gets on
Because of regained equilibrium the energy required to flip the
system is much lesser than the energy collected from its move,
as well, we do not need induced current to do it. Let the blue
some momentum and pass over equilibrium point - the system flips
on its own. How to do it with minimal losses is 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 of 36.3% 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. Also many
phenomena of quantum physics could not be explained, Big Bang
theory would not emerge unless co-called law were neglected
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
You probably know that GPS provided a "proof"
of relativity theory - it shows time delay and require constant
synchronisation. We already discussed the "time delay" shown on
the clock from YouTube. GPS uses atomic clocks their concept
also involves electromagnetic waves and has the same flaw - they
show lesser time with increasing speed. Contrary to relativistic
conclusions, it is clock readings impede not time itself.
For example: Let’s go back to the YouTube movie situation and
place two additional mechanical wristwatches, one on the Earth
another on the spaceship. Both mechanical watches and stationary
atomic clock will display the same time; only atomic clock on
the SS will show "time delay". Ironically, a sand-clock becomes
more accurate than an atomic one.
From time to time I am having a little fun
asking people two questions. Is it possible to achieve what
alchemists wanted - lead to gold transformation? Everyone gives
me a right answer: "go to hell" or "hell no, don’t you go to
school, alchemy was a pseudoscience"
Then I ask a second question. Is it possible to get one periodic
element from another? Most of the people do not fully understand
the meaning but some give the right answer - "Yes, it is called
nuclear reaction" and almost immediately come to realisation -
it was the same question asked twice. Lead and gold are both
metals, both from periodic table. Scientists dubbed one of such
transformation "nuclear transmutation" - term alchemy deems
According to both Bohr’s atomic and quantum mechanical models,
the difference between lead and gold is three protons in atom
nucleus. If we remove those extra protons from lead nucleus we
get an atom of gold and some energy released. Unfortunately we
do not have the knowhow to exercise that kind of control, not
I do not think that synthetic gold will be financially feasible,
but we are already running short of some rear earth metals it
holds back our technological development. Some companies working
towards mining asteroid or brining them down to Earth. It might
be the time to think outside the box and bring alchemy back.
William Coley, MD known as the Father of
Cancer Immunotherapy first attempted to harness the immune
system for treating cancer in the late XIX century. He observed
some of his patients cleared of cancer after recovering from an
infection. As we know it now, protein called immunoglobulin
exclusively designed for each infection can attack and destroy
certain cancer cells. All of the 500 types of cancer have one
thing in common – mutated DNA. Their DNA is very similar but
different from the one of healthy cells. Usually mutation is a
reason for cell death or rejection. For example, transplant
recipients have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of
their lives. For still unknown reason, our immune system does
not recognise cancer cells as pathogen and does not attack. How
can we tell patient’s immune system - "Go, wipe out the tumour”?
This might be the way.
Step One. Two biologically non-related patients exchange their
foes, each patient is injected with his/her partner’s cancer
cells or parts of the mutated DNA. Similar to virus or bacteria
those cells are destroyed and patients develop immunity to that
particular cancer. In the blood of each patient appears that
famous, highly specific immunoglobulin which destroys exactly
what it’s made to destroy – cancer.
Step Two. Same two patients undergo reciprocal blood
transfusions. Blood they receive contains the healing power of
immunoglobulin specifically designed to fight their cancer.
Also, immunoglobulin might attack healthy cells for that reason
I mentioned injecting parts of mutated DNA, instead of whole
cells, it should solve the problem.
The biggest roadblock for this treatment won’t be physiological
but obviously, the legal one. Furthermore, pharmaceutical
corporations are not interested to work in this direction – this
is medical procedure, consequently it can not be patented.
Warning: Ideas presented is this publication remain an
unproven theory, therefore, nobody shall interrupt ongoing
cancer treatment because of it.
Looking at the currently accepted atomic
model I was surprised that one important element is completely
ignored - electron is in constant movement thus as a charged
particle is must produce some magnetic field. Let’s take a look
how it will affect our understanding of the atom.
As you know since high school, two charged particles if they
move towards or away from each other generate two magnetic
fields, if the particles are of same charge, charges repulse
them but magnetic fields attract, inversely if charges are
opposite they attract but induced magnetic fields repel. This
principle becomes very handy explaining why negatively charged
electrons and positively charged nuclei do not collapse.
Imaging, an isolated hydrogen nucleus and an electron separated
by some distance, they are mutually attracted thus the approach
begins. Their relative velocity increases so does repelling them
magnetic fields. Those fields prevent them from collision;
instead the electron is trapped by the nucleus and starts
What happens to the electron then? Depicted below helium atom
has a nucleus containing two positively charged protons and two
negatively charged electron rotating around it. Conventionally,
we marked one electron with a dot it goes out of the page and
second electron marked with x goes into the page, magnetic
fields generated by the electrons represented by lines. Combined
magnetic fields create magnetic dipole of the atom, in plane
English – every atom is a magnet with north and south poles, so
far it was consistent with quantum electromechanical model.
Contrary to common believes we can determine a position of
electron at least relatively to the other. In the helium atom
electrons tend to be at the opposite sides because of the
negative charges they both have.
Also electrons rotate on the same orbit and keep same direction.
It is still possible to rotate in opposite direction, but the
orbits must be different and curbed, in this case the atom will
lose its magnetic dipole. If we can detect an atom without
magnetic dipole, it will be it.
Interesting things happen when an atom has
other then two electrons. For example, hydrogen atom always
forms some chemical compound to reach equilibrium, because with
one electron atom is energetically unstable or “exited” - the
term borrowed from quantum physics. The animated picture shows a
carbon atom with six electrons placed on two parallel orbits,
for better visibility I used two semitransparent planes. Several
forces acting in that system:
Magnetic field created by rotating
electrons makes those electrons to rotate in same direction
and with nucleons’ electric dipoles responsible for keeping
nucleus from disintegrating - it is what scientists call
"strong force" and still struggling to explain it
Repelling force between electrons (due to
negative charges) holds them as far as possible. On the
picture electrons are evenly distributed on two parallel
Centrifugal force acting on electrons
holds them away from the nucleus and tends to merge the two
Attraction between electrons and protons
keeps electrons orbiting without escaping
All electrons have equal angular
velocity, regardless of the orbit radii
Impact of the gravitational force is
I intentionally chose a carbon atom it is
easy to show the six electron distribution. But what happens if
we have more of them? Additional electrons are placed on
existing orbits, orbits respected radii are increased and more
orbits formed if needed.
It is considered that the strongest chemical bond formed by
covalent electrons, looks like it is formed by magnetic dipoles,
electrons readjust their orbits afterwards.