# Tricks, tips, tutorials, pictures and words

## amplification of gravity

The one with the weighted float on a chain, being dropped into a tank of water and rising up the column of water.

Now, that's clever thinking but it leads to the question...
"Did you figure a way of retrieving the float from the top of the column and cycling it back down the chain again ?"

You have an airtight gate at the bottom and one at the top, right ?
Thus, you can open either gate without losing the head of water, but not both at the same time.

-------------------

If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim by the inventor. The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed. However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume. When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall - with volume equal to that of the Float.

It was displayed as a warning to the experimenters who did not have a solid theory. The poor inventor "demolished" his house and spent years for a “scientific lesson.”

Lawrence Tseung
Not knowing the theory Leads Out high Pulse Rates when the phenomenon is explained.

Quote
If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim by the inventor. The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed.
I couldn't read enough of the Chinese subtitles to understand the meaning of the video.
I was going to ask my wife to read them for me.... Ying wei ta shi chong guo ren.

However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume. When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall - with volume equal to that of the Float.
Yes, of course. I hadn't thought of that.... ooops... neither had he.
However, surely all is not completely lost if the net amount of energy gained from the system is more than the amount of energy gained from running that volume of water through a water-wheel...?
That's assuming that he has a pressurised water supply as is the norm for households in the West, and I assume in most developed areas of China too. Not so handy in those rural areas where the only source of water is a well and it needs pumping or carrying !!

Ha... And of course, it's not scalable... There is a limited height to which the atmosphere will support a column of water, so it's not as if he could simply build it taller to gain more energy on the ride down the chain.

There's that problem with 'thought experiments' again.
The guy is in a stiff situation though... He's done all the 'thought experiments' he can.
I guess he didn't have access to complex and accurate simulation software in which he could have modelled his idea... His only recourse would be to build it and try it out... and only then does he find the snag...

I feel sad for the guy. I hope he managed to salvage something workable from the situation.

It was displayed as a warning to the experimenters who did not have a solid theory. The poor inventor "demolished" his house and spent years for a “scientific lesson.”

Then, may I suggest that you include a translation of the subtitles in the video description ?
Most Westerners wouldn't recognise one character from another and even those who are studying Chinese may have difficulty in following the subtitles.
Like me, they may look at the video thinking "What a great idea !" and not think past the problem of the loss of volume.

I thought this was a very inspiring device. Just looking at it leads out hundreds of other ideas. Last night I figured out that lifting objects takes about 100/1 of the energy as that what is released when lowering it. It appears to me that Milkovic's device is very inefficiency with 12:1 it can be hundreds of times better as that. lol This of course sounds so ridiculous I will try to debunk it myself the coming few days, if I cant find the bug I will put myself up for review. Eh, I mean the hypothesis. lol

The hypothesis would mean the energy in the flotation device is not in the vertical pull but in the water displacement while the module floats upwards. The shape of the module alone should be able to make the whole column of water rotate and do so most violently. If the pressure is inserted in a rotating shape it will try to continue this motion. The whirling column sucks the water out of the floatator. The flotator it-self pushes most linearly against the water above it. (Like a standing wave should)

We can thus put many hundreds of kilos of water into motion by pushing the flotator though it. Putting the flotator though additional times will make it whirl faster. Now where it gets quite weird is that the module can sail downwards on the whirl again. Still not overunity but already a weird thing to see.

Now pay attention to the pressure difference between the fluid at the rim of the tub and the fluid in the center of it! Floating at the outside means something entirely different as floating in the center.

If (hypothetically) the tube would be spinning fast enough we could drop the flotator thought the center as there would be nothing but air there.

By creating concave in the tube we can force the inner flow to go downwards and the outer flow upwards. It was really helpful to see the video while thinking about this.

gabydewilde - vortex engine

The device must also replenish it-self with rainwater. Vortexing water is incredibly good for all life around it. Anyone already knows how bad water is when you leave it standing still for some time. Leave it alone long enough and it will kill everything. Why do you think showers feel so good? Because it's bad for you? lol

I hear you thinking "why is Gaby now rambling away about biology, isn't he confusing enough the way he is?"

The point is quite simple, Stan Meyer said all bonds in nature hold vibrations, (vibrations are energy) when you break something then this energy becomes available in the environment. So a vortex engine needs to grind down water clusters and micro organisms! Even the slightest vortex will do this.

Victor Schauberger promised us that removing all the small natural vortexes would leave nature with only the really really big one's. All the energy we pump into the environment will come back at us at some later stage either as a whirling mountain creek or as a massive hurricane.

No, I would like to see 100 "unworkable" flotation machines. And if the researcher wants to pull down his house to make such video for me I think that's a bit over the top but it shows most respectable effort.

Gaby, you're so funny !!
I'm going to have to send you the same YouTube message as I've just sent to ltseung888 so you can share the amusement.

I'll let Zero in on the joke... Eventually...

After he's suffered enough rides up and down an elevator shaft whilst standing on a set of bathroom scales...

What do you mean by that? It should be equal, shouldn't it? After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction. If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

My hypothesis is that A pendulum is an incredibly innefficient machine. Most of the gravitational energy is destroyed on the way down. Something like 95% of it. The gravitational wave can do MUCH more work as just accelerate a body by such little amount. But the more we try to accelerate a mass the less efficiently we can convert potential into motion.

The bob may store a little bit of the gravitational potential, most of it is just destroyed. Mass does not like being accelerated quickly. This means the less we try to accelerate the bob the less energy it costs. The slower the mass moves downward the more gravitational potential we can obtain from the system.

Everyone knows that a longer string also makes the pendulum swing much longer.

I've created a 50 kg pendulum with 2.5 meter string and it never stops moving. It always moves at least 1 mm every 1.58520476 sec. At the moment it waves about 5 mm from left to right. I guess this is the same energy as we need to move 5 kg over 50 mm or 1 kg over 250 mm? And 250 gr over a meter? I really don't see the 250 grams swing a meter from left to right without some energy source.

Moving a big mass slowly leads out much more gravitational potential as moving a small mass quickly. It's silly but gravitational potential, the more load you put on it the longer you can use it. We all know how time works? no?

Dropping the bob seems the worse way to lead it out.

We can do much better as that.

How can you even make this hypothesis? While I have disagreed with you on some of your overunity theories, I always thought you had a pretty good grasp of basic physics, better than mine, anyway, so I do not see how you can seriously say that, so I assumed you were joking before.

You see how large pendulums on low friction setups can swing for a very long time. If 95% of energy was lost in each swing, then how can the pendulum continue for more that a few swings? If what you are saying is true, a pendulum would only make it up 5% of the way, compared to the previous rise, and we know from simple observations that this is not so.

oh, but I am joking. I'm just not sure who the joke is on here. I haven't explained my reason for making the hypothesis to make it sound extra weird to you. I can assure you it sounds just as weird to me but I'm willing to entertain the thought. Other people need to be tricked into chasing their imagination. I don't intend to trick you into thinking we now have accomplished the holy grail of overunity. I will tell you to just take an idea the way it comes and evaluate it, you don't need to be tricked in any way.

If I tell you half my theory and I claim gravity is the ultimate energy source you should just take that the way it is, = > incredibly amusing!! You should furthermore laugh at the fact I didn't really desire to share the thought. I can quite accurately predict how you will respond even if I gave you the theory?

You see how large pendulums on low friction setups can swing for a very long time. If 95% of energy was lost in each swing, then how can the pendulum continue for more that a few swings? If what you are saying is true, a pendulum would only make it up 5% of the way, compared to the previous rise, and we know from simple observations that this is not so.

Not at all,

I study the data given and it gives no reason to share my theory. It's obvious the rest of the world is still digesting lesson 1

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/veljko-milkovic/video

There are reproductions you know?

I guess I get it. You think that gravity is capable of delivering much more energy than we are currently getting out of it, and the fact that the pendulum is not overunity means that that it is losing 95% of its energy somehow.

I do like Milkovic's invention of the pendulum and the lever combined, and it obviously makes the task of drawing water easier on a person, but he is just playing with mechanical advantage. I guess we need something more to truly bring out the power of gravity.

Good luck with your experiments, but I am afraid that if you are right, we will suddenly find our planet taking a dive into the Sun.

shruggedatlas....

We are safe, it's just gravity interacting slowly. :-)

Wow, Gaby.
I am so glad I saw that video.
I was thinking to myself that someone should give that guy a medal... But I notice that they have... more than once !!!

We need more people like him...

Striving for a world where brilliance is welcomed, encouraged and rewarded rather than feared oppressed and punished.

Simple, elegant and incredibly inspiring !!

Demo machines made from bits of old bikes... LOL !!!

I love the Eastern-bloc thinking at times...

There's a well-known story, it may be myth but it's often repeated and even if untrue, it illustrates the mentality.

The USA developed a pen for use by their astronauts. It writes in almost any gravity condition, won't leak, doesn't smell inky (remember in a space-craft, you're breathing recycled air so anything that smells will saturate the volume very quickly) and so on and so on... It cost them \$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$ to develop and when US representatives met with Russian representatives, they presented them with one of these pens and told them of their proud accomplishments in managing to develop such a device.
The Russian reply was, "Ah yes. We use pencils !"