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.

This 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 equal
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 the top.

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 circle gain 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.

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 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 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.


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 unscientific.

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 yet.

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 orbiting it.

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:

  1. 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

  2. Repelling force between electrons (due to negative charges) holds them as far as possible. On the picture electrons are evenly distributed on two parallel orbits

  3. Centrifugal force acting on electrons holds them away from the nucleus and tends to merge the two orbits

  4. Attraction between electrons and protons keeps electrons orbiting without escaping

  5. All electrons have equal angular velocity, regardless of the orbit radii

  6. Impact of the gravitational force is negligible


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.

Share your opinion – it matters.