gravitational systems  

 

Gravitational systems, L.L.C.                           

New ideas for harvesting environmental power

   


about
Agri-Pumps
Generators
contact
FAQ
home
Museum
INDRA project
products
Sign up for our newsletter:

Email Address:

 

Interest:

 

Frequently Asked Questions

History

Please ask?

This pages reflect an on-going dialogue, check back frequently

Question?: Who is doing research on energy conversion of steps?

Take a look at this video featured on U-Tube by Toyota

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzb3VFi3Sew

Here is a prototype made by the nuclear commission in India

 

 

Question?.  We are doing research on the PEC design.   What support resources do you provide.

various questioners

If you have an approved project, you may use many of the engineering diagrams available on this site.  If you need authorization for research or demonstration projects, or access to our engineering drawings, please contact the research department.

Question?.  We have are researching the manufacturing of a PEC component, where can we see detailed engineering specifications?

various questioners

If you have received a solicitation from gravitational systems, our research department will provide you with on-line access to our specifications.  If you want to be a supplier, or component manufacturer, please contact our administrative department for further information.

Question?. What is your governmental licensing policy.

various questioners

As the technology matures we are encouraging its widespread implementation.  To facilitate this objective we will grant most requests for time, application, and volume limited open licensing requests.  Our principle engineers can work with local authorities, and manufactures for a nominal fee plus expenses.

Question?.    Will the public accept this system if they think that it is taxing their fuel usage?

various questioners

We think they will! If a particular jurisdiction chooses to remove energy from passing cars, it will be a choice made by local authorities.  Our system can be engineered to slow cars down, although that is a special application and is not inherent in the systems design.  However, their can be many valid societal reasons for modifying traffic flow, or even taxing motorists.  For example, many cites are concerned about fast, and noisy traffic on highways adjacent to small communities.  This opposition has prevented many useful roadways from being constructed.  If the city could be offered reductions in household energy costs, this may be the incentive necessary to win approval for needed roadways. 

Another justification that a government may use is safety.   Providing power, which is independent of the local power grid, can be a big improvement in the emergency preparedness of busy roadways.   Signage, and lighting would continue to operate even in a catastrophic event like an earthquake.    Such a design might also be used to replace toll plaza's, or for automatic ice removal from key bridges.

However, we must emphasize that this will be the choice of local authorities, based upon local conditions.   And, the PEC technology offered by gravitational systems can operate at high levels of efficiency without impact on motorists.   We are inventors, and systems designers, and as such we do not expect to participate in energy revenues of the technology once it has be installed.

 

Question?.   Doesn't this system violate the fundamental law of the conservation of energy.

various questioners

False. The PEC obtains energy from the gravitational potential energy of a significant weight, being suddenly placed upon it, and then removed. 

This mode of activity, quick movement of weights, is characteristic of vehicle and animal movement, as they pursue independent agendas.

This source of energy is clearly evident in all movement of significant weights in earth's gravitational field.   The pressure on the surface is a function of gravity  determined by  the characteristics of the source.   The gravitational energy is then captured by either a fluid or mechanical device, and converted into electrical current.   That piezoelectric crystals are used to create energy from pressure, with insignificant deformation is a established scientific fact.

The most common misconception of this system is that the source is required to do work not essential to its primary task.  This is only true if the system is engineered to remove energy from vehicle.  In essence the PEC design, may or may not, allow the vehicle or animal to do work by deforming the surface of the roadway or walkway. 

For example, if a vehicle deforms the road surface, this would add work, cost fuel and create pollution. 

However, in a closed loop high pressure implementation of the PEC, significant road deformation is not necessary to generate pressure.  When a vehicle encounters a PEC of this design, the surface pressure of the PEC is high enough to resist all deformation pressure except the pressure over its internal psi. 

A common sense example of this is when you sleep on a firm air bed, it may not sag under your weight, but you can bet that the internal psi reflects your added weight.   If the un-loaded psi in the bed was equal to the psi generated by your body, then you would notice almost no deformation.  And if the air bed had a horizontal pitch-controlled framed solid top, to distribute your weight evenly, you would be unable to notice any deformation.

 

 wpe5.jpg (32306 bytes)

The psi of the fluid inside the PEC is increased by the introduction of the vehicles weight into the system.   This pressure increases the PSI on the output side of the system.  As the pressure seeks to equalize in the lower pressure input side of the generator, work is done at the generator.  When the vehicles weight is removed the PSI in the system is equalized again, and work at the generator stops until the PSI increases again.  The work done at the generator is via a gearing of the significant changes in the PSI of the system.  This methodology, of using increased psi to do work, has been employed by steam and internal combustion engines for a century.

Other alternate designs which do not require additional work by the  passing vehicles, features a fixed plate road surface, with either an open or closed PEC system, segmented underneath. 

This would be ideal for a toll plaza entrance.  The vehicles would not deform the road surface at all, but the changing pressures on the surface would be used to do work at the generator.   

Another design features an articulated top plate, designed to eliminate any vertical displacement of the vehicle, and yet still provides significant horizontal displacement of the PEC's top surface.  A medium pressure PEC, could thereby be deformed by .5 or more inches. 

wpe2.jpg (25558 bytes)

Our point is that these are simple engineering designs which effectively mitigate concerns about decreased fuel efficiency or increased pollution.

 

Question ?.  Is this a perpetual motion machine.

various questioners

False.   First perpetual motion is an out dated notion, that does not belong in scientific discourse.   All the idea of perpetual motion implies, is that the commenter is unable to understand the source of energy, not that the source does not exist. 

We do not believe, nor have we ever alleged such for the PEC design.   The source of energy is intermittent pressure, and if no pressure is applied no energy will result.  Also, once the energy of particular source is converted, a new source must be applied for additional energy to be captured. 

The PEC is simply a device designed to capture the energy that is currently wasted as heat or compression on the roadways. Anyone who is responsible for maintaining the roadways knows this first hand.

 

Question ?. Does this device steal energy from passing vehicles or animals.

various questioners

False.  The PEC, although by no means free, is a device to prevent the waste of gravitational potential energy, from moving vehicles or animals.  

I say that it is by no means free, because there are some effects on targeted processes.   In the case of vehicles, there may be a slight depression of the roadway, much like an uneven pavement, rumble strips, or debris.    However, the effect will be largely un-noticeable by vehicles with operational shock absorbers.  

The energy source is gravity, augmented by the PEC, and will have an insignificant effect on passing traffic.  However, the economics are as such;   given that the vehicle can obtain  20 MPG and each PEC adds 1 inch to the length of the drive, assuming a .5 inch deformation.   This would then steal 1,267,200th of a gallon of gas.  The result would be, assuming a 2,000 lbs. vehicle, 83 ft. lbs. of useful pressure.  To summarize, 1 gallon of gasoline could generate over 100 million ft.lbs. of useful pressure.  Even at 1% efficiency, {we actually calculate 60 to 70% }, the energy payoff is incredible.   Do the math.

 

Question?.   ...It looks as if this system operates from a resistance placed on the vehicles.   That resistance will create an increase in horsepower required by the vehicle which in turn will require an increase in fuel burned.  If the vehicle runs at 20% efficiency and your system is a 50% system, the end result is a fossil fuel generator with a 10% efficiency - not very attractive.

It would seem also that it would not matter if this were placed near a stop sign or traffic signal.  While it would help to use braking energy from a vehicle at a light or stop sign, which is wasted as heat, this would only work for the vehicles which pass the system while braking.  For those vehicles stopped behind the system, it would again be a resistance to those vehicles requiring more energy during acceleration from the light and through the system.  When the light is green your back to 10% efficiency.   Application at stop signs would be better, but only if you can be assured that vehicles are braking when they cross the system.  If vehicles stop behind the system your back to 10% efficiency....

@mail.state.ne.us

Thanks for your response.   Your fundamental view of the technology is incorrect.   The key is that this system converts pressure not movement.  

The system does not use the energy of the passing vehicles.  It instead converts the potential energy embodied in the weight of the vehicle as it travels across the system.  There is no significant reduction in the fuel efficiency of vehicles which encounter the system.  The system does not generate, or depend on, additional resistance.  The best analogy would be a 1 ton weight being dropped on the surface of the system, and then quickly removed, then replaced...thousands of times per hour.  As this analogy demonstrates the energy would be in the lifting of the weight, but this lifting is done for us by the natural movement of vehicles.

I hope that this has cleared up your questions, and will convert you into a supporter of this new technology.  If the system operated as you described we would call ourselves Resistance systems not Gravitational Systems.

 

Question?.   What is the kind of maintenance that will be required to keep this system up?  Is this where costs will be incurred?

@dingos.com

Thanks for your question.  In the early implementations, maintenance will be an issue.   However, as the design matures, we believe that maintenance will be only slightly higher than traditional roadway costs.  

There may also be reductions in maintenance costs for expansive implementations.  This is because the system actually prevents destructive energy from being transferred into the road surface, and super-structure.   However, these questions will only be answered when extensive field tests are completed

Question?. While this might make sense  for road side applications like signs and lighting where it is too expensive  to tap into the grid, PV {photo-voltaics} probably does the job just as well and without  moving parts.

@nrel.gov

The PEC system compares very favorably with PV in terms of economics.  First the PEC system, without the benefit of years of research, can already provide energy at only 10 -20% of the cost of PV when the comparison is cost per unit of energy generated. 

We expect the CPUEG to  reduce with development and research.  However, an additional advantage of the PEC over all forms of solar and wind, is that it is effectively immune to natural cycles, like daylight.  Quite to the contrary, PEC technology will operate day or night, on calm or windy days.  Plus, unlike PV, the amount of energy generated by the PEC will increase with the traffic loads.

This "always on" aspect of the PEC, also gives it an advantage in both emergency and  high-peak load situations.

Question?. In terms of powering cities, the idea seems extra crazy.  Essentially you are converting a loss in fuel efficiency into electricity.

The laws of physics simply dictate that there will be losses in efficiency  each time you convert from one source of power (the power used to move your car) into another (electricity generated from water pressure created from  the movement of your car).  The end result -- everyone paying more for gas  and dirtier air.  I guess the one exception could be devices set up on the  downside of hills where people were trying to slow down anyway (a form of  regenerative braking).

@nrel.gov

While there can be some loss of fuel efficiency by the passing vehicles, we feel your view is short sighted.  First, although the PEC system can be configured to reduce forward velocity of vehicles, this is a specialized application.  The primary configuration takes the energy, which is normally used only to destroy the roadway, and converts it to electrical energy.   An extensive PEC system, properly configured, will generate power at ratios of 700:1 relative to the reduction in fuel efficiency.  And as a byproduct, reduce road wear.

The key to PEC conversion is the weight of the passing vehicles, the movement is only used as a modulating source.

In summary, PEC is not a replacement for either wind or solar energy, but instead is another approach to clean renewable energy sources.   We believe that as an infant technology, the PEC technology has tremendous potential for growth and the users will find a myriad of applications for the unique potentials of this new and un-tapped power source.

Question?. In your response to Mr. Maez, you acknowledge this device would reduce the efficiency of automobiles. ("there can be some loss of fuel efficiency by the passing vehicles") So, aren't these devices stealing energy from consumers? Your source of power is gasoline, hardly renewable or clean. You also claim the devices reduce road wear. How?

@ee.doe.gov

Thanks for your question.   You are absolutely correct that the PEC can be configured to "steal" some energy from passing vehicles.   But I would point out that any roadbed appliance,  speed-bumps...rumble strips...etc., also removes some energy from passing vehicles. 

However, with the PEC the pay off is in energy for the community.   Also let me reiterate that the power source is not the forward movement of the vehicle, it is the weight.   And this power source is now only being used to destroy the roadway.  Every car that drives over a section of road, can be seen as analogous to a jackhammer being applied.

Your second questions, reduced road wear, is embedded in the first answer.  Although most people don't consider it, the movement of heavy vehicles over a roadway is destructive.  Why?  Because energy is being transferred from the moving vehicle into the road surface and underlying superstructure.  The PEC takes that destructive energy, in accordance with physics, and translates it into another form.   Consult with road designers for more insight into this process.

 

Question?    While some applications of your proposed technology are intriguing, I am concerned by many of your claims.  Particularly your claims that this is a renewable energy source and that the PEC system is capable of generating power at a ratio of 700:1 relative to the loss of vehicle fuel efficiency. 

To me, this defies the First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy as well as the physics behind simple vector analysis. You cannot "convert gravity into torque" without movement.  Using the "weight of the vehicle" to produce power means downward movement. For the car to proceed on a level road over your device, it must first "lift" itself up to then create pressure in your system,   inevitably translating into a loss of fuel efficiency. 

Granted, use of this technology to power the lighting of an off-the-grid road sign would probably have an immeasurable impact on fuel efficiency, but claims that this system could be used to cleanly power cities seems ridiculous. 

Finally, I would like to emphasis, as far as I know, neither the US Department of Energy nor the National Renewable Energy Laboratory either endorse or condemn the concept behind this technology.  The opinions expressed in this discussion are simply my own.

@nrel.gov

Our calculations indicate that a single 2,000 pound vehicle would, at our maximum efficiency, generate approximately 84 foot pounds of work, assuming a .5 inch road deformation. 

Each time it passed over a PEC. This would be multiplied by the many thousands of vehicles which pass a given point during the course of an hour on an urban freeway during peak.  If 100 PECs were distributed over a 1 mile section of roadway, I think it is clear that the power generation potential would be substantial.

Once we can move beyond the novelty of our design, and the natural resistance to new ideas.  You and your colleagues will see that the system holds great potentials.   And that at the very least, some resources used to validate, or invalidate, the design would be a justifiable expenditure of government.

 

Question?.  What is the power output of the generators?

PennWell Publishing

On our website, in the products/Vehicular Systems section we feature a variety of standard generators matched to a particular application.    Here is an example;

Modular Bladders:  Modified IPSI Model 80 QN\L 80 kW

Question?.  How much testing has been done so far?

PennWell Publishing

We have tested the design extensively with a CAD design program.    And a couple of prototype simulations have been built, but just for 40th scale testing.  The nature of the design requires some cooperation and licensing from local transportation officials, which we are seeking currently.

Question?.  Do you know how many cars have to pass before the battery is filled up?

PennWell Publishing

Batteries are not a part of the design.  The primary design is to feed any excess power into the local power grid.  However, for remote applications, an array of DC batteries can be configured to store power.  The number and power output of these batteries will be dictated by expected traffic patterns.

Question?. And how much power does the battery hold?

PennWell Publishing

See above

Question?. Would this innovation work as well on a highway as it would in downtown traffic?

PennWell Publishing

The design of highways systems for use, differs from urban roadway systems, to accommodate the higher speeds.   Much greater efficiency is achievable when the traffic pattern is dense at high speeds.

Question?.  Please tell us more about the demonstration projects or any pending deals that may give us a hint of your company's "next step" in this endeavor:

PennWell Publishing

We are currently in discussions with DOT's in New York, Delaware, and Virginia.   However, we are seeking publicity to jump start West Coast projects, particularly in Los Angeles and the bay area.   Officials in both of the locations have been approached but have not yet responded to our project proposals.

Question: ? I am curious about the energy equation. Your basic claim, which without more information I can neither confirm nor dispute, is that you are taking wasted compression energy (the tar is compressed/unloaded by vehicles, which costs the vehicle energy), destined to be dispelled as heat, and converting it to (useful) electrical energy.

Regardless of the conversion efficiency, if the energy would have been exerted (but wasted) anyway, you are not costing the traffic system any additional energy expenditure. How does the amount of work extracted from a passing vehicle by your ("best") system compare with the amount of energy that vehicle would have dispelled (wasted as heat) into the roadway had your system not been there, as a percentage? I can't imagine the calories/HPs/ergs/whateverunits amount to much, but I do know that highway surfaces dry much sooner after a rainfall than non-traffic roads - but I would expect the vast majority of that heat to be coming from tire friction and radiative heating from a hot engine passing over rather than from compression heating of the roadway material.

I guess I also need to know, when I'm driving a car down the
road at say 60mph, what fraction of my gasoline consumption
goes to (wasted) compression heating of the road surface?
(That is certainly the maximum energy that your system can
obtain from my passing car without costing my car a gas
mileage hit.)

pete.thurmes@honeywell.com

Thanks for your continued interest.   I am happy to dialog with you for two reasons, the first is my objective of explaining this technology, and the second is that questions help us to understand it better.  

Let's approach the non-technical implications first.   Yes we are seeking investors, and there is risk inherent in any venture based upon new and largely untested technologies.  As an American business we make no apologies for this.   Second as to the potential claim of free energy, I think that un-tapped energy would be a more precise characterization.

Next, let me be personally candid.  As a scientist, and an educator, the only thing that I am sure of is how little I actually know about anything.  It is my ignorance that motivates me.  I detect from the tenor of our dialog, that you see yourself in another light, and you will find it easy to attack at the fringes, or with semantic arguments.  However, I can appreciate your passion, and as long as you are civil I will try to answer your questions.  Also, your implied dis-ingenuity of our claims begs the question, of why would we post attacks by the scientific community on our website, if we did not want to foster real concrete debate.

The power of gravitational energy is not in question, even in popular physics.   Our ability to tap it does require some proof.  I realize that an argument, based upon undisclosed information, is suspect.   To this I say, that this information will be released soon, and it will address the question of power from pressure without displacement. 

Question? I guess my biggest problem with your claims is that:

1) You don't give any theoretical basis for an energy source based on conventional physics.

2) You don't give any rationale for anyone else to expect that your system actually has a non-conventional source. You don't give any evidence or alternate (to conventional physics) theoretical basis - you simply state that you have dreamed up a system on CAD that will extract "gravitational energy" without motion.

I realize I may sound elitist - that "popular physics" is THE ONLY
possibility. I don't believe that's true. I consider myself quite a
non-conformist, but I DO consider myself a scientist (of sorts), in that I firmly believe in the scientific method (in fact, to the point where I've become an atheist because I simply cannot fit religion into reality via the "scientific method"). Most scientists agree on this method as a basis for all "science" - vs. religion/superstition/handwaving (e.g. creationism), which by their very nature are counter to the scientific method. They aren't necessarily untrue - there's just no scientific way to test them, so they aren't scientific.

How I see the scientific method (and therefore everything I would consider "scientific") is that you dream up a theory (no matter how wacky), you explore how the theory matches (or doesn't) existing theory, and you also look for (experimental) evidence that your theory reflects reality. Sometimes that last step is left for experimental scientists, but certainly you need one or the other in order to consider your scheme as following the scientific method.

What I understand from everything I've seen on your website and our lengthy discourse, is that you are basing a new technology on a new idea of how gravitational energy works, one that even you claim is not covered by conventional physics. But you give no theoretical basis - no chain of logic that a scientist can follow to see how you arrived at your conclusion that extracting "gravitational energy" (and not relying on up/down motion - change in grav PE which is the basis of conventional physics). You simply state that you've dreamed up such a system and you'd like people to buy into it. You also present no concrete evidence or even confirming observations. 

Normally when a new theory is born (again, no matter how outrageous) the true scientist will apply some basic tests before he will claim that any physical system could be constructed that would be based on that theory. 

I could claim that I've drawn up on my CAD program a mechanism that runs forever with no "conventional" energy input, but there's no reason for me to expect anyone to believe me based solely on that claim. And to state that I will soon prove it really begs the question. Why would I be looking for investors in something that is not based on known science (or known reality)
without presenting some evidence that I'm not simply a quack? I certainly wouldn't claim your system is quackery, but without either some scientific theory or concrete data to back you up, I have no reason to believe it ISN'T quackery. The burden of proof lies with the scientist. 

And if I still sound elitist, well, I guess that's how scientists think.
They believe in their methodology, and if you don't follow that
methodology, your claims are not considered to have a scientific basis (i.e. they're 'superstition' - blind belief with no scientific basis).

pete.thurmes@honeywell.com

Thanks for your response.  There are two relevant questions. First, does the PEC have a positive cost:benefit ratio. Second, can the PEC obtain a net energy gain. The former is relevant to users and investors, while the latter interests the scientific community. 

In answer to the first question, the answer is yes. power conversion, by dams, wind mills, and solar panels are often costly both directly and indirectly. Dams slow river speed, impact on fish conservation, and are expensive. Similar cost are associated with both wind and solar energy.They are increasingly successful because of positive cost:benefit ratios. The PEC, even with neglible net gains, performs a useful power conversion function, this is not in dispute. For both agricultural, and vehicular applications net gains of energy, are only relevant in a limited range of applications. And as the PEC and G-pump, systems become widely available, they will be employed in competition with conventional sources.

The second question of net energy gains is interesting. Can we implement the PEC such that the total energy cost to the target is significantly less than the power gain. That is the somewhat murky definition of a generator. This question has a common sense answer, and a more technical one. Common sense shows that weight is independent of power output. A parked vehicle, or a dead cow, retains its massive weight. Weight is a source of power in many applications. Hydro-power, is one instance. Any system within which a great weigh is applied and then removed, in a systematic way, is affected in direct relation to the application of that great weight.

 




Ask any question, about the technology, and if your question is interesting, we will give you a quick reply.  Note, only questions which address the technology will be read by our engineering staff.

Email Address

 


gravitational systems, L.L.C. 

P.O.Box 2066, Washington DC 20013-2066 USA

888-241-1577

Hit Counter