I'm now pretty confident that the Gravity Pulse Motor (GPM) Mark 3 design will work so I'm upgrading it from blog status to the General Discussion forum which is open the public and therefore counts as publication as far as the patenting and the public is concerned, albeit not the scientific establishment. :-)
This design overcomes the limitation of imperfect elastic recovery by starting the drop of the simple pendulum from around 2 o'clock rather than 3 o'clock as in the case of the Mark 2.
The 8 Stages of the Gravity Pulse Motor (GPM) power cycle.
The cycle the repeats from Stage 1.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
I like that pole sitting in the middle of that bushy area. I want a pole like that to show people. It's a good image.... So why did you put it with your blog update? =-D Your perpetual motion machine is cool too.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I put the image of a gold claim stake there to make it clear I was making a claim to be the first person to devise a system which will harness Newtonian Gravitational Energy on a continuous basis.
It is of course entirely possible that when people dig no gravity gold will be found. Such is the nature of prospecting. :-)
Thanks for posting your priority claim.
Nice work!
Kindly allow me to point out that a claim would be valid only after exhaustive search of prior arts worldwide.
Congratulation for your GPM design.
Raj
Thanks for those kind words, raj.
I agree with you that an "exhaustive search of prior arts worldwide" just might invalidate the Gravity Pulse Motor claim but I think it's rather unlikely.
BesslerWheel.com is the most important web site in the English language for gravity research so unless there's a similar site in China or Russia that we've never heard of there's not much danger of being preempted.
Even RAR probably got most of their background from contacts with Ralph and possibly others on this site.
And whilst on the subject of RAR, I wish they would hurry up with that press release we have heard rumours about.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Grimer
Nice work on your design. It won't do anything btw. The free weight will fall, maybe gently kiss the group of 7 on the other side, but they'll remain at rest. The imparted energy < than the 7th weight within the group.
I'm curious though as to what you are staking a claim to. Certainly it can be said on a particular day you posted this design, but bar a cursory mention by others who may utilize an aspect of your concept, you are without recourse .
Furthermore, there are a few phrases thrown it that infer some patentable rights . There are none.
Finally, it is laughable to think that some feel that by posting in the members only area it in someway still unpublished or not general knowledge.
As far as the patent authorities are concerned if you put your design onto a piece of paper, place it in an unread book in a library that is located in a remote island that is visited by one brave sailor a year, it is no longer patentable as it has been disclosed. So the moment you place anything on Besslers Wheel forum, in whatever area , you've kissed goodnight to any rights.
I think you have misunderstood my intention, Chris. My whole idea is to make it impossible to patent. I'm not interested in priority from the patenting point of view but from the not patenting point of view.
I'm glad to hear that even posting in the members area makes it published.
As to whether it will work or not we must agree to differ.
Grimer
I'm sure your gravity impulse device has been discussed at length on the members only section, but I'm curious as to the degree of faith you have in it.
In simple terms , you're saying that a falling pendulum will impart a force to an imbalanced beam, such that the heavy end will rotate, pick up the pendulum, create a balanced state, rotate, and then drop off the pendulum back at its start position ?
Although it is a neat idea, matches only by its title, it is fundamentally flawed .
Firstly, to simplify things, remove 6 weights from either side of the beam . These are surplus to requirements.
You are left with a weight at rest at 9, and a pendulum at two.
The pendulum at 2am, we know, can only have enough energy, upon release, to reach just before 10.
In an ideal world therefore, when the pendulum imparts a force to the static weight, either via a spring at the axle or through impact, that static weight can only rise from 9 to just before 10.
The pendulum, after it has had its fall energy extracted, will just flop back and come to rest at 6.
Nothing can improve the above. You can add 6 weights either side . It will make no difference .
You scoffed when I said that you may as well remove 6 weights aside as these are surplus to requirements as they add nothing to system.
What do you suppose their addition brings to the table ?
If your proposal has merit it should work up and down the scale of weight numbers. By removing the common factors from either side of the balance beam, you are left with the essence of what you believe to be the motive power - that being energy transfer from the pendulum to the mass at rest.
There simply isn't enough energy in the tank for it to act the way you propose. Even if you have it a healthy start up spin, when one side is heavier than the other, it will perfectly counter the energy imparted by the pendulum .
Chris, apparently you aren't a "keen mechanician that appreciates the rationale behind it"... but then Frank isn't either, since he won't build his own idea.
