Hi there, I'm really trying to help, as I know you've put a lot of thought and effort into this idea. You're going to get a lot of mean replies probably, or people accusing you of trying to pull a scam, and I want to try to explain in a more kind way why that is.
First, I spent a good deal of time in my younger years thinking and scheming about such things, only to have people tell me these ideas would never work. But it took a while for me to fully grasp why that is.
Here are the points that you'll want to take to heart:
1) Any individual part of a machine is going to lose some amount of energy to friction, etc, as you can't get perfectly / friction free anything. So, if I turn a crank, or use a lever, pully, etc, some amount of the energy I apply to make the thing work is going to be lost in friction. Meaning that the energy being generated by that part of the system is minimally slightly less than was put into that part of the system. One pitfall many people fall into when first exploring free energy machines is adding more and more simple machine parts to add energy, when in reality, these will only subtract more energy from friction, etc.
2) You point out that you believe you've worked around this problem, as you are harnessing gravity as an outside energy source, so therefore I assume your belief is you can overcome the lost energy in the machine by the power added from gravity. However, the problem in this line of thinking is the old addage "what goes up must come down" or in this case its actually "what goes down, must come up." Basically, you do get the help of gravity while an object is descending, but gravity is working against you with the same amount of force on the way back up. So, even in a system with zero friction, your going to equal out to, at best, zero positive energy from gravity, as all the "energy" you gain from gravity on the way down will be expended bringing the object back up so it can be dropped again. As soon as you add an axel, or whatever your item will be rotating around, you lose a bit of that energy to friction, and then even more when you add the piece to actually use the energy (which will only be generated through more friction of some type when you boil it down).
You've added extra parts around this, so its a little less clear in your mind, at first inspection, that you're going to have gravity working against your machine just as much as it is helping your machine, but look at it like this. Let's say you're going to build a machine where you attach a rope to an object, and drop the object to generate energy when it tugs the rope. Eventually the item falls as far as it can, and must be lifted up again to the height from which it was dropped. The amount of energy that will be expended in getting that object back up to the dropping point will always be minimally the same as the energy you gain dropping it, as you fight gravity all the way back up, and you lose energy from whatever mechanism is lifting it through friction, heat, etc (whether you are lifting it by hand, or whatever).
I'm sorry to rain on your paraded, and I realize its highly likely you feel I don't grasp some special part of your machine that solves these things, but I think you are sincere, and I don't want to see you use your passion and energy on an idea that simply cannot work. And I wanted to tell you in the kindest way I knew how.
Best of luck to you my friend, and I do hope you find an idea and a passion, one that doesn't involve free energy (or harnessing energy from a source, like gravity, which actually isn't going to be a net positive in your system).
well, thank you very much for wording that in a nice way for me and being kind. i'll have you know that i am really sincere about this machine, since 1993. i have made some further corrections on the website, as of 5:40am, wednesday 07/16/14, to make this system easier to understand for the masses. you are also right, i do believe you are missing something about how this machine works, which, i hope you will come to be understood, once the prototypes are built. the main point i feel your missing, is that in this system, the transmission and mainly the 8 to 10ft leveraged out arms, create a scenario where friction as you mentioned and all other mechanical forces, are fought through, in an easy way, with the use of gravity, on the way down. now, the winches, lifting these arms and weights up, does not know that their simple work is being turned into more energy on the way down, with the use of gravity. this is because those winches are not fighting a leveraged out and weighted arm on the way back up, but wrather are pulling up just a little bit of dead weight, on the way back up. there is where we have a winning scenario, in my opinion. however, i will get back to you, once these prototypes are constructed. take care and thanks again.
I understand why you might THINK this will work, so maybe I can explain where the reasoning and design is flawed:
First, lets define a few things with hyper-simple values, to make it easier to relate the numbers, input, output, and losses due to friction.
-Assume you're using 50 lb weights on each of your devices arms.
-The arm length itself is not important, as long as both arms are of equal length.
And lets call the amount of energy generated by "dropping" that 50 lbs, 50 units of kinetic energy, which you'll convert into 50 electrical energy using a simple crank generator or some similar device.
So, when you drop 50 lbs, you'll gain 50 energy. BUT you have to ALSO lift up the other arm in the process, which likewise, weighs 50 lbs. Lifting the other arm will COST you 50 energy to raise.
You might be thinking that the process of dropping one arm raises the other arm for "free" but I assure you, this is NOT the case. It costs 50 energy to raise 50 lbs.
Perhaps you can think of it like this: If YOU were to manually pick up a 50 lb weight (Yeah, just kneel down, and lift it up, like any weight lifted) did you have to expend energy to do so?
The answer is, yes, you DID expend energy to lift that weight up.
You took energy your body had stored in chemical form (calories, protein, fats, sugars, you get the idea) and converted that 50 chemical energy, into 50 kinetic energy, by lifting up the weight. If you were to drop the weight onto a crank generator, you could again convert that 50 kinetic energy, into 50 electrical energy. Now lets say you use that 50 energy to power a lightbulb, that will convert the 50 electrical energy into 25 photonic energy (light) and 25 thermal energy (heat).
You NEVER GAINED FREE ENERGY! All you did was convert that 50 energy from chemical, to kinetic, to electrical, to photonic and thermal.
See, the reason you gain 50 units of energy by dropping 50 lbs, are because you're going WITH gravity. But the other arm is going AGAINST gravity, meaning it COSTS 50 units of energy to raise up again.
So the arm being dropped will gain you 50 kinetic energy, which you'll convert into 50 electrical energy using a generator. But the arm being raised will cost you 50 kinetic energy to raise, which you'll be providing by using an electrical motor to lift it up. In other words, you'll be using the electrical motor to convert 50 electrical energy into 50 kinetic energy, which raises the plate.
Do the math on this, the net gain of this model is 0. The device neither creates, nor uses any energy. But thats in a perfect world. In reality, it gets worse.
See, the assumption of 50 gained, 50 lost, is in a world without friction. Except that reality is FULL of friction, and it's always going to be working AGAINST you when you're trying to design a perpetual motion device.
Assume 4% loss of energy due to the forces of friction. In reality, friction is HIGHLY dynamic, depends on a huge number of factors, and can even account infinite energy loss as you encroach upon the extremes of physics (moving light speed for example) but 4% is more than sufficient for a simple theory model, and makes the numbers round out quite nicely in this case.
When you drop the 50 lb weight, you may actually only gain 48 units of energy. 2 units of energy are lost to the forces of friction. And again due to friction, it wont cost 50 energy to raise the 50 lb plates on the other side, it will cost 52.
Which means, with each paired arm movement, your device will LOSE 4 energy!!! It will gain 48 from dropping the left arm which holds 50 lbs, as it spends 52 energy to raise the right arm holding 50 lbs. Then it will gain 48 dropping the right, and spend 52 raising the left.
Angel, MANY similar models to your gravgen have been tried before, and ultimately after creating prototypes, the creators all realize that they used a flawed understanding of physics to come to their conclusions. You cannot "capture gravity" the way you are envisioning.
If you want a renewable souce of energy thats easy to capture, I suggest you look instead to Solar. The sun is spewing out tons of Photonic energy, just waiting to be captured and converted!
Angel, it's obvious you put a lot of thought into this. You will have seen that the "masses" think that you are missing that gravity is not going to give you a free lunch in your closed system.
It would be worth your having a look at wikipedia's instructive entry on perpetual motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
And noting the despairing quote from no less a thinker than Da Vinci, who is reported there as saying (more than 500 years ago!):
Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists.
But it's a fascinating subject - so good luck to your explorations of this area - I hope you don't spend too much time and effort going up this blind alley. All the best to you.
LOL, Dumb Puerto Rican.
Maybe I am.
I won't leave messages on here often. Sorry.