Free Energy Gravity Device #2

[kamalmichael]

maybe a gd design for a windmill as u say it takes little energy to shift the rotor... very gd idea ..cant understand why ppl press the dislike button so quick....keep up gd work

[TheSaeed111111]

3:21-3:48 the mistake

[OK55OK55OK]

Glad you admit that it won't work. "for every action, there is an equal and opposite action" Perpetual motion will not work. give it up.

[ToemanX]

@OK55OK55OK I could not get this device to work. The point of posting it on Youtube

was to encourage others to study the design and possibly come up with changes

that would enable the device to become successful.

[OK55OK55OK]

@ToemanX

Ok, that's cool, you're very smart, and quite a builder too. This thing is a work of art!! I'm anxiously waiting to see the "device" you are working on now.

[ToemanX]

@OK55OK55OK Thanks for your interest. I'm just as anxious to complete my latest

device and see it working.

[qin02]

@ToemanX

what his saying that it will never work, even if the design was improved. its newton's laws and the conservation of energy. For how ever much energy this creates it will turn into heat generated by friction. you get a net of 0J.

[QuantumChance]

The object does not become heavier, it is torqued more on that side than the other by gravity - it doesn't 'weigh' more.

[nicbordeaux]

Please, show us the thing turning and working a generator or something ;-)

[ToemanX]

@nicbordeaux I had a working model, since dismantled. I could not make the model self-running. The purpose of this video is to show how the model was suppose to work. This may give others ides about how to make their devices successful.

[GameOVER2017]

lol



[MrUFOwatcher1]

where is the maskin duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude ?

[WoodIsGood321]

fake and gay

[ninnzbinnz]

looks good but the counter weight at the bottom of your rotating arm also moves away from the center and you haven't taken this into account. the system wont work and you will end up with a net energy loss. the top of the rotating arm will cancel out the bottom.

[ZiggyD12]

@ninnzbinnz dude, you didn't get what he was saying...

[ninnzbinnz]

@ZiggyD12 i got what he is saying but it wont work is what im saying very simple to make try it

[Albus8256]

Оо как работает покажи }:[

[andydotbaines]

aww bless.....at least he isnt hurting anyone....perhaps a little boring reading may explain why it wont work (usualy covered in basic gcse science).....but i loved his explanation.....shame its wrong but it still brought a smile to my face

[MichaelRMcCoy]

Lots of talk and claims. Let's see it in action.

[diggoran]

@ToemanX I'm sorry if I'm bashing you a bit too hard. I can see from your replies to other comments that you are actually quite knowledgeable in sciences in general, and I respect that. I only take issue to the fact that you say this device can produce "Free Energy" when it can't.

[ToemanX]

@diggoran I do not claim this specific device can produce "free energy" because it

does not work very well. In general, I understand the difficulty (if not the impossibilty)

of achieving free energy from a gravity field. However, I pursue this goal as an

interesting hobby.

[diggoran]

Have you ever heard of rotational inertia? Because your right-side weights are far away from the motor's axis and because they are massive (high-mass), it would take considerably more energy than you thought that motor would need. definitely more energy than the drop in potential energy caused by the lowering of the left weight.

[ToemanX]

@diggoran I am very familiar with the concept of inertia. I think you got you physics

confused. The stationary mass inertia of a weight is the same for a weight one foot

from the asxis as it is ten feet (ignoring the weight of the longer arm). To move a

one pound weight one inch takes the same force regardless if the weight is at the

end of a one foot arm or ten foot arm (ignoring the weight of the longer arm).

Failure of the device is not because of the inertia of right-side weights.

[diggoran]

@ToemanX I'm sorry, I said energy when I meant to say power. Power is energy over time. The rotational inertia may not, in fact, cause a longer arm to take more energy to turn than a shorter arm would, but it would definitely cause it to take more *time* to rotate, increasing the power necessary to rotate the arms. The electricity needed to run the motor that turns the arm would have to supply this power, negating or even draining the power gained from the system. See "moment of inertia" on wiki

[ToemanX]

@diggoran You are thinking of moving a single weight. In my device two weights are

moved on a balanced arm in the direction of a gravity field. Once stationary inertia is

over come the arm would take very little energy to rotate, if the arm hub has good

bearings.

[diggoran]

@ToemanX By the way, I'm taking my second year of college physics this year. I would be very surprised if you came up with an argument that I couldn't prove wrong using simple Conservation of Energy laws.

[ToemanX]

@diggoran I am too intimitated by your admitted sophomoric level knowledge of physcis to

challenge you. Besides my goal in life is not to try and disprove the conservation

of enegy laws.

[jib1000]

@ToemanX I wouldn't bash someones intelligence when you can't even grasp as simple a concept as weight. You keep talking about the weight changing, but none of the weights change, you're simple changing the center of gravity of your system. This causes gravity induced, not a change in weight.

Your naive attempt at a gravity wheel leads me to believe you have little to no understanding of basic physics.

[ToemanX]

@jib1000 The one thing I do know is that an object's mass does not change but it's weight can. Weight is a measure of gravity's force on a mass. A mass on a longer lever arm has more "weight" than the same mass has on a shorter lever arm.

[jib1000]

@ToemanX Wow.

A mass on a longer lever arm has the exact same weight as the same mass on a shorter lever arm. Changing your position on a seesaw doesn't magically change your weight, it changes the amount of torque that gravity exerts on the lever arm.

F=ma

I suggest you go read a high school science text before replying to me.

[ToemanX]

@jib1000 You state,"Changing your position on a seesaw...it changes the amount of

torque that gravity exerts on the lever arm." That is exactly what I said in my

comment. Torque is a turning force applied by gravity and this changes with the

change in a masses position on a lever.

[jib1000]

@ToemanX No you said it changes the weight. You know little of physics, and you won't ever build a gravity wheel, since its impossible.

[ToemanX]

@jib1000 Gravity force = the weight of the object. If you change the gravity force

you change the weight of the object. One practical way to do this is to place

the object at different positions on a lever arm. An object further out on the arm

has a greater gravity force applied to it, therefore, it in effect weighs more.

[ToemanX]

@jib1000 Gravity force = weight of an object. If you change the gravity force you change the weight of the object. One practical way to do this is move an object further out on

a lever arm where the gravity force is greater on it. this means,in effect, the object weighs more. That is why an object of same mass on longer arm falls while a object of

same mass on shorter arm, on other side of hub, will rise. Gravity force=weight of the object.

[jib1000]

@ToemanX Wrong.

Gravity (at sea level) = 9.81 m/s^2

This is a constant, it doesn't change. Moving a weight along a lever arm changes the angular force of the object on the system. It does NOT change the weight of the object.

Force is equal to the mass of an object times the acceleration upon it.

F=ma

In your case none of these factors change. Gravity (a) is constant, the mass of the object (m) is constant, and therefore the force (F) is constant.

[ToemanX]

@jib1000 The rate of fall due to gravity is not constant, the rate is squared, meaning it speeds up. The mass on the tip of a longer arm has a longer distance to fall, than the mass on a shorter arm,(on other side of the hub) so it accelerates, speeds up, to fall at the same rate as the short arm. The longer arm goes faster so its mass has more force. In gravity terms a mass with more force means it has more weight. Gravity force = weight of a mass.

[bnladen09]

hh..ok thanks i loved your videos...can you do a video like this to explain the magnetic power ? i have a bycicle and i feel so tired when i sit on it it...hh i need to reduce my effort and i have a crazy idea from cartoon : the horse and carrot ! lol...i will get a magnet in front of my bycicle and it will try to reach that magnet as a stupid dog !! how how ! very nice no .?

if you have an efficient idea for my bycicle just tell me..

ali from morocco (20 ans)

[ToemanX]

@bnladen09 The idea of holding a magnet , at a constant distance, out in front of a bicycle hoping to

propel it to the magnet does not work. However, you have good ideas. Keep thinking

up ideas and one day you will have a great idea that works. My next video is about

a magnetic motor and perhaps you can add this to your bicycle.

[bnladen09]

thanks !i learned the gravity power concept from your video (: but i don't think this is usefull..it's too slow, it can't produces the direct current zzz!..i have an other hypothesis in chemestry in which we can produce gas (methan) from what we get from it's combution..i mean the reverse reaction. the normal equation / CH4 + 2 O2 ---) CO2 + 2 H2O (vapor) + heat /. to produce CH4 we need to condense the gases CO2 + H2O + heat under water ( 0 O2 )..is that possible teo? if possible i'll be rich

[ToemanX]

@bnladen09 Your methane producing project is ill-advised for two reasons. First,

it would take more energy to make the methane, by your method, than you would get

out of it. Secondly, America already has huge reserves of natural gas (which is mostly

methane gas). There is no need to produce artifical methane.

[spyfart]

!!??..Nothing's new buddy..

[ToemanX]

@spyfart Well, the point is I thought it was a new design. I have not seen a similiar design in any other source.