Commonsense

By Gare Henderson

Since the beginning of time, man has both reveled and resisted the force of gravity.   We call it many things, weight, load, burden, but it is generally the perceived reaction of a mass to the gravitational field of a nearby object of much greater mass.  In the dictionary weight is describes as “the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation”.   If we examine this definition, it begs the question “what is gravity and how does it attract”?   It could be hypothesized that gravity is the cumulative affect of subatomic electrical or magnetic attraction.   It would then follow that relative mass would be generally relative to gravitational attraction.   These properties of gravity, are very similar to the properties of electrical energy, or atomic energy,{i.e. the capacity for doing work}.

The point that I make, however, is that gravity is a way of describing a relative property of matter.   This property of matter, as we know it today, easily fits the loose definition of energy.

When I was a young student, I read a popular scientific text, entitled “What We Don’t Know”.   It featured many of the mysteries of science circa 1960, including wave motion and gravity.   Gravity has intrigued me.

…..

I had one of many conversations recently, with a technical editor from a national popular technology magazine.   We were discussing the operation of our new product called the G-Pump.   The G-Pump, or Gravity-Pump, is a simple device that converts intermittent  weight, from gravity, into fluid movement.  

The significance of the conversation is that the editor, who seemed to like the device, quickly concluded that gravity part of the name was a marketing ploy.   I quickly assured him that the system depended entirely on gravity.   As proof, I pointed out that the device would not work nearly as well on the moon.  This conversation prompted me to write this paper to examine the potentials of gravity as an energy source.   Of course, any engineer knows that gravity is the oldest energy source to be tapped by man.   As boulders roll  down a hill, they are energized by gravity.  The roman aqueducts used gravity to bring water from the mountains.   Even the  use of heavy structures to shield us from bad weather, is an example of gravity being tapped as an energy source.  As well, many of our most fundamental technologies are basically methods of overcoming gravitational energy.  Everything, from aircraft to the floor coverings, are examples of devices that would be very different, or unnecessary,  in a different gravitational environment.

Unfortunately for mankind, gravity has not been viewed as an energy source.   It has been viewed as a basic reality of our existence, like the existence of the sun.   As a un-tamed mystic source, like the hand of the gods.    This view is short sighted, and leaves our most plentiful form of energy largely untapped and un-controlled.     In support of this view, I point out that solar energy, which has existed since the dawn of man, went largely un-tapped until recently, although it too was widely used even by ancient primitive peoples.   The same can be said for energy from the earth’s gravitation.   Just consider that a force so powerful, that it can hold trillions of tons of  material fast to the exterior of a rapidly spinning sphere.   A force so immutable, that there is no known insulation against its affects.   Compare this so called weak force to electrical energy, atomic energy, or even magnetic force,  and I feel that you must conclude that it is a tremendous source of energy, that when deftly trapped or tapped, can be quite significant.

Over the past year I have had dialogues with many esteemed physics experts, their arguments against gravity as a power source have been numerous.  Many have argued that the examples of gravity power presented, miss the fact that potential energy is being expended when a rock rolls down a hill, or water flows down hill in an aqueduct.   It has also been argued that the system cannot derive energy, from any source other than the targeted process, due to the laws of the conservation of energy. 

However, I posit the question; 

If I lift a 1 pound book 1 foot from the ground, the potential energy I put into the system would, by definition, be 1 foot-pound.  If I now maneuver the book so that it is hanging over a nearby 1000 foot gorge, did I just add additional potential energy to the book?  If I move it back over the edge, did I just somehow absorb the energy?  Obviously not, and to make such an assertion is ridiculous.   This is not a new question.   Anyone whom has the responsibility of building large heavy structures, such as office buildings, must consider these shifting potentials.

 My point is that the potential energy of  an object, is a poor measure of the gravitational energy that could be generated from an objects position relative to the dominant gravitational force , and is therefore  absolutely relative to an arbitrarily selected surface.

The argument against the violation of the conservation of energy is also easily explained, by the realization that the energy system does not simply include the targeted object, {i.e. the vehicle or the animal}, relative to the roadway.   Instead, it must consider the object in the dominant gravitational sphere, which does not end at the arbitrarily selected road surface.  

.    In a recent discussion with the USPTO patent examiner, he raised a similar question, and the specter of perpetual motion systems.  My comment to him was when we apply the law of  the conservation of energy to try to dispel gravity as an energy source, it is similar to one who observes two boys fighting in the school yard.  We could ask their teacher, and she may conclude that one boy is weak, and the other is a bully.  But the same event when viewed in a sociological context may conclude that the fight is because one boy is rich, and the other poor, or one black and the other white in a racist society.   In short I do not disregard the principle of the conservation of energy, instead I say lets look at the larger system for solutions.

I offer the argument, that if gravitational force can add energy to an object, then gravity is an energy source.

It has often been argued through this endeavor, that my energy from traffic device, does not receive its energy from gravity, but that instead it robs the passing vehicle of fuel.  And since our early designs featured a small displacement, in the form of a drop or lift, critics were quick to seize upon this as proof of theft.   As a result I, the quixotic inventor, have been called everything from a crackpot to a criminal.

Unfortunately for these quick critics, we were able to quickly remove any vehicle displacement from the design, by simply adding a collapsing ramp to the device.   To the driver it presents as a displacement, in the form reminiscent of a 3” speed bump.  However, this bump in the road is spring loaded, and as soon as the vehicle physically encounters it, the bump is absorbed into the road, only to re-appear after the vehicle has passed.   The force that can be trapped, from this compression, is relative to the weight of the compressor, and to some extent the duration of the encounter.  The argument then raised is that the energy to compress the ramp is stolen from the vehicle, and that is true if you consider a chair is stealing energy when someone sits on it.   There is a transfer of energy, but the transfer is of gravitational potential energy, not consumed fossil fuel.  While the net effect on the vehicle, and its fuel economy is approaching zero.

In summary, I have offered the proofs of the validity of gravity as an energy source, even using the current limited nomenclature of physics.   The primary proof, is that since it can be proven that gravity can add potential energy to an object, then gravity is a de-facto energy source.   I have also demonstrated, that significant energy can be derived from a heavy moving object, with a zero transfer of  energy from the object’s forward momentum.  And that the force, or energy derived, is relative to the weight of the vehicle, and is relatively independent of its forward momentum.  This in itself validates gravity as a plentiful, and easily tapped source of energy.

02.06.22

  Gare Henderson