Science Forums

# Gravity Driven Mechanisms

## Recommended Posts

now, besides emile giving the clock & water-wheel as examples, he asked for we respondents to give other examples of "gravity driven mechanisms". i gave a few, but 2 in particular bear on my argument.

1) a guillotine. emile agreed this is a "gravity driven mechanism". i observe that it uses a mass that is raised, the mass is let fall by an activator, and the mechaism works on its own untill the mass lands at the bottom. note is this case there is no rotational motion, so rotation is a sufficient motion for a "gravity driven mechanism", but not a necessary motion.

2) a set of locks. my argument is that a mass is raised beforehand; this is the same water as for a waterwheel. in the case of raising a boat, an activator opens a valve and the raised/higher water flows into the chamber holding the boat at a lower level, and the boat rises. in the case of lowering a boat, an actor opens a valve and the water in a chamber holding a boat high drains out and the boat is lowered. note here again there is no rotational motion of the working mechanism, but the mechanism does effect motion without further input after it's started.

emile disagreed that locks are water driven, saying motors pump the water and/or operate the valves. i gave examples of locks operating in Britain that have no motors; humans open the valves and move the chamber gates by hand. emile ignores that, reasserts locks are not "gravity driven mechanisms" and says that discussion is over.

so to my mind, if emile can not give an accounting for why locks are not "gravity driven mechanisms" in the same sense as weight-clocks and water-wheels per my argument of raised & released masses, then emile does not have a proper definition in his mind of what constitutes "a gravity driven mechanism" as are weight-clocks and water-wheels. this of course calls into question his analysis that leads him to declare his mechanism a "gravity driven mechanism".

again this is not some off-topic symantic quibble. the whole point of this exercise is to class "gravity driven mechanisms" [presumably] using logical means, which is exactly what my arguments do.

• Replies 200
• Created

#### Popular Posts

No. What I'm saying is the only energy input in this device is through your manipulation of the balancing lever. Perhaps a simpler, yet far less artistically pleasing, model would be easier for me t

Aemilius, I’ve looked carefully at the still and motion pictures, but can’t entirely make out how your machine is put together. It’d be helpful if you could post a diagram/mechanical drawing.   I did

dead-fall and pit traps are gravity driven mechanisms.

#### Posted Images

Turtle. I think now that I can see what you trying to say... Now that it has been layed out rather throughly. It seems to me that you are confusing gravity driven with perpetual motion.

no; i am not confusing them. note that in my arguments that have just swayed you, i made no mention of perpetual motion or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. this is because they don't apply to my argument. these terms do come into play when emile suggests that were he to make some additions to his mechanism, those additions would activate the lever and he wouldn't have to. in that case, as there is still no raised mass beforehand, the mechanism would have to be operating of itself, which would be the very definition of a perpetual motion machine.

Take away the water, takes away from the waterwheels motion(which is based off of imbalancing weights), take away the wind up spring you take away from the clocks motion(also driven by a weight). Take away emiles hand, takes away from the mechanisums motion(emiles hand is the water or the weight). There are no mysterious forces acting on these devices they require energy from another source in order to create motion. Emile is not cranking the device over he is imbalancing the device just as how the water imbalances the wheel.

"imbalancing" the device means he is raising some mass. i did not say he is cranking it, rather i gave a crank as an example of a lever imparting rotational motion.

And to say that if emile stops moving the levers stops the device from working so it is not gravity driven? Its the same as saying that if the water stops flowing, the water wheel will continue spinning? Does that make sense to you? It makes very little sense to me... I would assume the water wheel will stop turning... Why do you think if the outside sourse of imbalancing (water) on a water wheel stops, the mechanisum continues to work? It goes the same with the pendulum clock... The pendulum serves the purpose of timing the clock the weight which winds up by the spring inside the clock is what drives the engine of the clock.

correct; emile stops moving the lever and so the device is not a gravity driven mechanism as are weight-driven clocks and water-wheels. then...erhm...no. weight-driven clocks do not have springs. spring-driven clocks have springs.

I am not sure if you know how a pendulum clock works heres a link just in case. (Not trying to insult your intellegence) the pendulum is activated by your hand... You start this motion by swinging the pendulum.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118228/workclock.htm

My grandfather taught me how to fix these types of clocks when i was very young. Which got me on the track of visually viewing mechanisms fully functioning in my mind.

I am not 100% sure if i am on the same page as emile, but if i am not then i am sure emile will sort me out.

Ps i am not pro on vectors but i am assuming that the length of the vector arrows indicate the amount of reqiured movement to imbalance the mechanisums. If that is incorrct as well i am sure emile will sort me out again!

yes; i know how pendulum clocks work. note that the pendulum is part of the escapement, it imparts no mechanical advantage, and it is not a necessary part of a weight driven clock. you could replace the pendulum escapement with an ignatz escapement for example. what is a necessary condition of a weight-driven clock is a raised weight whose fall under the force of gravity imparts the force(s) that keeps the hands turning.

ps think of emile's little levering as you would a person pushing someone in a swing. once the swing is got going, the pusher need only add a little push at the top of the swing's arc [emile's all important timing] to get the swing to just as high -or higher- on its next opposite top of arc as the last. if the pusher stops pushing, the swing swings a little less high each succesive up/down cycle until it comes to rest. (note that the time of each cycle is more or less constant and independent of the height of the swings, which is what makes a pendulum ideal for a clock escapement.)

Edited by Turtle
##### Share on other sites

It seems rather difficult to find a definition on this.

I always assumed that a gravity driven device is defined as, an outside energy source(not gravity related) which affects an object in such away allowing gravity to do the work

Examples:

Water wheel. Kinetic energy from the water running down hill imbalances a wheel causing gravity to rotate the wheel.

Pendulum clock. Kinetic energy from the pendulum slowly releases the weight of the clock which was engaged by the key winding it up causing the maintenance of time

Emiles gravity driven mechanisum: kinetic energy created by emile from emile eating food imbalances the device causing gravity to rotate the wheel.

Locks. Kinetic energy created by the weight of water being forced down by gravity fills or empties the lock. (Seems to work out? Emile? Your argument please?)

##### Share on other sites

Turtle you deserve everything that has been said to you... Your whining falls on deaf ears... Your only complaining because one more person does not want to put up with your constant belittling and lack of obedience to your forced opinions. I for one am gratefully looking forward to Emile's next stage on this project. Even if he does not succeed to 100%. Its been a wonderful read, as well as an insightful view on the mechanical mind of Emile. It would have taken me years to get something as mechanically fascinating as Emile did. One of my hobbies is mechanics but vehicle based lol so i am aware of how moving parts work. Heck i rebuild my own automatic transmissions and have no degree in mechanics i learned by asking questions from people who are not assholes such as yourself. I did not know how they worked and the people I asked did not belittle me and forcefully tell me to bring it to a shop... They owned the shop! And helped me out! Its you turtle that is the problem... I only hope that one day you could put your pride off to the side... You seem to be a rather intelligent person you could help out so many people struggling to understand things. And by helping someone out does not mean to stuff your facts down there throat, but help them find those facts on there own... No one learns properly by giving them the answers, they need to discover them on their own by being guided in the right direction. Take care turtle... Maybe one day we could all get along without these pointless arguments.

Children! My such language! Chewbalka you'd do well to thoroughly peruse the rules for conduct at this site. Something tells me you are the type that watches the "free energy " machines videos on youtube, actually believe they work, and believe the only reason you don't have one is the darn oil companies won't let you have one.

Turtle is not the only one here that thinks something smells off here...sudo science at best more likely pure BS...and last time I checked this is not a BS ,a Sci-Fi, or a sudo-science forum it's a science forum. Show up making claims you'd better be ready, willing, and able to back them up. Referring to the same link over and over and over while ignoring valid questions and passive aggressive attacks do not qualify as making a genuine effort of adhering to the site rules, common decency, or offering legitimate proof of a claim.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case Emile. It is his responsibility to back up his claims pertaining to his device to the satisfaction and understanding of the reader whether they be Einstein or the village idiot. Which he has made every effort to avoid. With my firm understanding of physics and engineering 1. I see nothing new or of any practical use. 2. See someone that knows that a reader sees through his attempts to hide behind information that is incomplete and by itself means exactly bupkis. 3. That said person is set on trying to reduce the credibility of the only person responding here that knows he's full of it because he cannot offer legitimate proof that those gullible enough to believe the rest of his tripe won't see through let alone those of us with both life experience and education.

##### Share on other sites

I hope you don't have a psychologist degree in understanding the human mind. Because if so you got ripped off terribly and you should sue them for the obvious failure to teach you effectively. You poor soul it must have cost you quite a bit of money which was basically just thrown away. Oh wait you probably do not have degree in psychology lol. I do not believe in free energy devices i understand the laws of thermodynamics, i only attempted at creating a few for entertainment purposes. Just on the bases of a mental challenge. What bothers me is the pompous self righteous a\$\$holes such as yourself who act like the toughest smartest mother fu€kers on the planet. Oh and just so you know, i know its crazy but the purpose of the science forum is to learn. I do not recall reading anywhere that in order to post here you must agree first with what turtle and whoever the fu€k you think you are. We need an amendment to the rules of this forum. We need to add your name to the list of pre-approval posts oh master of poor judgment. I have this great idea! It basically states if you do not like the post and wish to be a prick about it go somewhere else! Because no one cares if Emile successfully builds this device or not even Emile does not believe it will be completed perfectly... So what do you have to say now that is obviously just a waste of time? It would be nice if it were constructive... But i doubt it...

One more thing i have read through this topic a few times and i do not really recall any questions that turtle asked which were not answered at some point. I do recall however multiple pointless post of bickering with no actual questions by turtle... I am just happy that i now have one more air waster to add to my list. Another jerk who spends time poking at others just to make them feel like \$hit... Congratulations whatever that name is... I gratefully look forward to spending time in the future annoying you!

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites

I will remind you yet again you would do well to thoroughly read the rules for this site.

Quite frankly both of you would have been warned and then banned long ago if the Mods were not busily trying to resolve spam issues. Your ongoing use of profanity has been reported, I'm sure a Mod will be in touch with you soon on that matter. I'm sure as well they will have a thing or two to say about your conduct in general upon reading the reported content and posts leading up to it. Do yourself a favor read the site rules.

##### Share on other sites

I must admit i have learned absolutly nothing from this site. Besides that people would rather talk down on those less intellegent then themselves... It would so terribly devistate me if i were to get banned! I mean how could i continue not learning? Especially from people such as yourself. Your no help... Your just a bully picking on those you deem less intellegent... Your a good example of how bad this site has gotten...

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites
What kinds of topics are discussed here?<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(238, 243, 248); ">This is a forum for discussing science and technology. Basically, we welcome anything that falls within these realms. We like to consider ourselves open minded, but we do not like to see commercials, arrogant comments, or flames. Nor do we accept posts that are obvious attacks on other members, or which make other members appear needlessly stupid or ignorant. It is, however, okay to point out that you believe a member is in violation of our rules. You can also report posts to the administrators for review.
How should I behave?Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

• In general, back up your claims by using links or references.
• If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.
• If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
• Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.
• Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.
• The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings.
• If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.
• It is generally a good idea not to spend all your time in only a few topics.
• Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!
• Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, messages in the chatroom, and private messages.

<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting.

##### Share on other sites

As stated perviously before... I don't care. I did what was nessacary to remove arrogant individuals from attacking others...

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites

...

One more thing i have read through this topic a few times and i do not really recall any questions that turtle asked which were not answered at some point. ...

but...but... a few posts earlier you said:

It seems rather difficult to find a definition on this.

I always assumed that a gravity driven device is defined as, an outside energy source(not gravity related) which affects an object in such away allowing gravity to do the work

Examples:

Water wheel. Kinetic energy from the water running down hill imbalances a wheel causing gravity to rotate the wheel.

Pendulum clock. Kinetic energy from the pendulum slowly releases the weight of the clock which was engaged by the key winding it up causing the maintenance of time

Emiles gravity driven mechanisum: kinetic energy created by emile from emile eating food imbalances the device causing gravity to rotate the wheel.

Locks. Kinetic energy created by the weight of water being forced down by gravity fills or empties the lock. (Seems to work out? Emile? Your argument please?)

so you reword the definitive characteristics and their application to "gravity driven mechanisms" that i introduced in my summary , imply you don't know if they are valid or not but that they may be, and throw them in emile's face. ouch!

based on what emile has shown of his mechanism, -chewi et al- do you believe it is a gravity driven mechanism just as are a clock & water-wheel? if so exactly how, and if nay excatly how nay't.

for extra credit, please favor a verdict on whether or not locks are gravity driven mechanisms with the appropriate whys or why nay'ts.

anything less is, well...something less.

##### Share on other sites

I see these things as gravity driven, all that are listed in my previous post. I honestly do not know why emile says locks are not gravity driven... No clue but the list above says logically it is so. I never at any point stated that i disagreed with your listed opinions of gravity devices. These suggestions seem to fall comfortably into this idea. Gravity acts upon the weight of an object causing movement. The only reason i can come up with on why emile disagrees with the lock idea is. The movement of the water does not always move something, meaning the boat may or may not be in the lock at the moment gravity is doing its work on the water. It is not necessarily creating very much or complicated mechanical work. But none the less gravity is draining or raising the water.

PS you never responded till now about the list of questions i listed and i did say they eventually get answered...

PPS lol i am not throwing it in emiles face... Its the exact opposite I am just curious as to how emile views the workings of a lock... Thats all there is nothing vindictive about it... Emile has always been honest and full of good intensions towards me and I believe his response will be no different.

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites

I see these things as gravity driven, all that are listed in my previous post. I honestly do not know why emile says locks are not gravity driven... No clue but the list above says logically it is so. I never at any point stated that i disagreed with your listed opinions of gravity devices. These suggestions seem to fall comfortably into this idea. Gravity acts upon the weight of an object causing movement. The only reason i can come up with on why emile disagrees with the lock idea is. The movement of the water does not always move something, meaning the boat may or may not be in the lock at the moment gravity is doing its work on the water. It is not necessarily creating very much or complicated mechanical work. But none the less gravity is draining or raising the water.

Ps you never responded till now about the list of questions i listed and i did say they eventually get answered...

the problem with your assessment of emile's device is that it cannot operate/work -say rotate- for more than 1 cycle without someone or something continuously attending to moving the lever. if he doesn't touch the lever, but simply moves the rotor to a point of imbalance and lets go, the unattended device will move back to one of the [4] positions of stability and stop, not even completing 1 rotation. emile's mechanism will not rotate, it will not "work". it will not [can not] replace the weight in a clock & keep time unattended for days and -even if scaled up- it will not [cannot] replace the falling water and drive the wheel unattended. in this regard emile's mechanism is quite unlike the weight-driven-clock or a water-driven-wheel, which do their work continously as gravity continues to move a mass downward & unattended.

now we can have a water-driven-clock or a weight-driven wheel, but you cannot substitute emile's mechanism as a driver in either of those two devices and have them work unless emile is working the lever. ergo, emile's device is not gravity driven; it is, once more with gusto, an emile driven mechanism.

Edited by Turtle
##### Share on other sites

I can see your point if emile stops moving the device the device stops moving. But i do recall mentioning this before, if you remove the kinetic energy from any of the listed gravity mechanisms they fall under the same problem. Will not can not work anymore... I wonder why it is that emile is not considered a form of kinetic energy?

Kinetic energy

Noun:

Energy that a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.

I do believe there is no limit to as in how or where the movement originates as long as it is moving it obtains kinetic energy.

My question is simply how is it okay for the water to stop flowing on a waterwheel and it can still be considered a gravity device.

My question is simply how is it okay for Emile to stop moving levers on the device and it can still be considered a gravity device.

See the similarities? This is why i am so confused at what is and is not acceptable? Can you please explain why you view it as so with an including of the waterwheel idea since its already on the table!

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites

I can see your point if emile stops moving the device the device stops moving. But i do recall mentioning this before, if you remove the kinetic energy from any of the listed gravity mechanisms they fall under the same problem. Will not can not work anymore... I wonder why it is that emile is not considered a form of kinetic energy?

Kinetic energy

Noun:

Energy that a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.

I do believe there is no limit to as in how or where the movement originates as long as it is moving it obtains kinetic energy.

My question is simply how is it okay for the water to stop flowing on a waterwheel and it can still be considered a gravity device.

My question is simply how is it okay for Emile to stop moving levers on the device and it can still be considered a gravity device.

See the similarities? This is why i am so confused at what is and is not acceptable? Can you please explain why you view it as so with an including of the waterwheel idea since its already on the table!

you are failing to discriminate between "gravity acting" and "gravity driving". this is a key difference when the force of gravity is being "used" in a mechanism to do work. yes, we could trivially say anything dropped is a "gravity driven device" because things dropped exhibit a motion imparted by gravity, but when it comes to getting some work done with a "mechanism" as with the waterwheel, there is no comparison. keep in mind the water-wheel is a mechanism for doing work beyond its mere turning. we connect a water wheel to a flour-mill or a saw-mill or an electrical generator to "drive them" and do the work of grinding and sawing and making electricity. (people invented these mechanisms because doing those works by hand is hard and takes a long time.) if we shut off the water and let the wheel stop once the work is done, this does not mean the wheel is no longer a device that can do that work, nor does it mean gravity does not continue to act on it and hold it to Earth.

emile's device does not stop being a gravity driven mechanism because he takes his hand off; it was not a gravity driven device even when he had his hands on it. again trivially, if emile accidently knocks the device to the floor we could say it was "gravity driven", but that does nothing to discrimate it from knocking a rock off the table, and what good is that definition? (that's rhetorical of course; it is no good definition at all.)

think of a car and its wheels, wherin gravity acts on the car all the time by pulling it down, but the car will not drive -move as we want- on its own unless of course it's on a hill. great if you're always on a hill and want to go down it; not so great for an uphill or flat road. naturally, the engine/motor is the "driving force" for cars, nothwithstanding gravity effects on the car. (indeed, a heavier car requires a larger engine to do its work, than the engine required of a lighter car.)

quite simply, again, if you cannot put emile's mechanism in place of the motive power of the water-wheel, the lock, the car, or the clock, then whatever emile's mechanism is, it is not a "gravity driven mechanism" in the same way as what it is meant to replace. (trivilly, if emile's mechanism weighed a kilo, then you could hang it as replacement to a 1 kilo clock-wieght and while we could then say "emile's mechanism is driving the clock", it would still be the clock that is the gravity driven mechanism and not emile's mechanism.)

then too, kinetic energy is not unique to "gravity driven mechanisms", so it's no exclusive qualifier for them. but, the potential energy of a raised mass is unique to gravity driven mechanisms and therefore a fundamental qualifier.

##### Share on other sites

My next question because so far i can not argue your point so far we have deduced that kinetic energy is not a player in the definition of a gravity device... Correct?

I assume you agree to this as it is what you stated. Question what purpose does the small weights on his device serve if not to be acted upon by gravity? Do you suppose the device would work just as effeciently with or without the weights? If so i am certain this is something emile could do to show if your hypothesis is indeed correct!

Secondly I once again assume your definition of a gravity driven device states that gravity exerhuts its force on a mechanisum to provide an external energy?

Yes? No?

And hopefully emile is getting wind of this in order to confirm the theory of the importance of the weights on his device.

What do you think turtle?

##### Share on other sites

My next question because so far i can not argue your point so far we have deduced that kinetic energy is not a player in the definition of a gravity device... Correct?

I assume you agree to this as it is what you stated.

not exactly. because kinetic energy is energy of movement, and because movement is a requirement of a "mechanism", [see definitons below], then kinetic energy is a player. but since it is a player in all mechanisms, i.e. all mechanisms exhibit movement when working, seeing movement in an "assemblage of fixed and moving parts" just tells you the device fits the category "mechanism"; it says nothing about the potential energy the mechanism converts to kinetic energy. i.e., the source of power. no one is contending this is not a mechanism. clearly it is.

Question what purpose does the small weights on his device serve if not to be acted upon by gravity? Do you suppose the device would work just as effeciently with or without the weights? If so i am certain this is something emile could do to show if your hypothesis is indeed correct!

for one thing, the weights work in opposition to each other, so they effectively cancel one another when you consider their movment through one cycle. one weight has moved around counterclockwise and one has moved clockwise once around.

by putting the weights further out from the center of rotation, their attaching arms are in effect longer "cranks/levers" and this increases the torque the arm(s) impart on the rotating parts they attach to. presumably the sun/planet assembly has insufficient mass far enough from the axis to impart enough torque to get it to move.

now, as i explained with the see-saw simple lever, if you lengthen your side of a lever, you can lift a heavier load on the other. however, you have to then move your longer end a greater distance to move the load side the same distance as when you pushed harder on a shorter side. so there is no gain in how many calories you have to burn to lift the load distance (height) x. push hard for a short distance to get to x, burn 75 calories: push lighter but for longer time over a longer distance to lift to x, burn 75 calories. in terms of emile's machine i suspect were the weight arms longer, he would have to move the lever further, (or reduce the weight of the weights) and were they closer he would have to move the lever a shorter distance (or increase the weight of the weights. (or, if the arms were shorter the device wouldn't work as it does for the reasons above.) in any case, the total energy is preserved.

econdly I once again assume your definition of a gravity driven device states that gravity exerhuts its force on a mechanisum to provide an external energy?

Yes? No?

not exactly. gravity exerts its force on a raised/suspended mass, and that mass is connected to a mechanism in such a way as to cause the mechanism to operate, i.e. move & do work. the mass driving a "gravity driven mechanism" is not the mechanism; it's a component of the mechanism. as i said above, gravity acting on a mechanism is not the same as gravity driving a mechanism.

And hopefully emile is getting wind of this in order to confirm the theory of the importance of the weights on his device.

yes of course.

What do you think turtle?

i think i covered your questions.

some definitions:

mechanism

mech·a·nism (mk-nzm)

n.

1.

a. A machine or mechanical appliance.

b. The arrangement of connected parts in a machine.

2. A system of parts that operate or interact like those of a machine.

...

machine

ma·chine (m-shn)

n.

1.

a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.

b. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.

2. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.

...

Edited by Turtle
##### Share on other sites

Chewbalka "And hopefully emile is getting wind of this in order to confirm the theory of the importance of the weights on his device."

Yeah, I'm getting wind of it.

Edited by Aemilius

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.