Gravity is a limitless power source.

It's the sudden stopping part that kind of queers it as a viable method of transportation.

Yeah, you should stick to walking on the ground. Everyone will be safer.

Every kind of aircraft employs the effect of gravity when descending.

Ahh, the return of the quest for perpetual motion!

Wow. Can you guess how many laws of thermodynamics this would break? My monkies will fly before this does.

I've read some of the Hunt site, and they they don't seem to be going for PM, just higher efficiency, borrowing a technique fish have been using for millions of years. Even if it doesn't work exactly as they predict, I could see how it would be more efficient. I just hope they don't propose dumping the helium into the air everytime they descend. That would be a whole other can of worms.

I read in WIRED recently, of some guys from Ohio who have already prototyped a wing-bodied dirigible, with their eye on creating a fleet of cargo ships.

We obey the laws of thermodynamics on this planet. Thank you very much.

You've been hoaxed. Ever learn conservation of energy at school? Thermodynamics? No? Thought not.

I think you're taking Justin's description at face value. They talk about using all kinds of funky add-on technology that seems to make it sound like it runs on magic or something, but they clearly state on the website that it should need LESS fuel, not NO fuel. It seems the hidden trick in this system is that they will need some significant stores of compressed air aboard at launch, and it's obvious that they'll have to use conventional power to fill up their tanks between flights.

Their real-world model is sea creatures that 'sea glide', which allows the creatures to use far less energy, but they still have to eat.

closed mind much?
did u guys read the article?
He is a theoretical physicist, don't you think he knows about thermodynamics? and he addresses in the article that it isn't a pm machine.

it sounds interesting, and actually plausable. they are building a prototype, it will be interesting to see if it works.

I do say my dear fellows a flying air-automobile is impossible because on this planet we obey the law of gravity. No person could ever create such an outlandish machine that would find a way around this simple fact.

Baron von Antiquated
1875

The best part of the story is the picture. They plane just happens to be 'flying' over the politically unstable, oil-rich middle-east. ;-D

THis sounds like a cross between a blimp and a sailplane. Blimps are good because they can lift things without power, but need motors to move forward. Sailplanes, once lifted to some height, can fly forward while losing altitude until some hot rising air is found, extending flight. A combination seems like a good idea since the lighter than air part can lift the vehicle, then it can fly downwards and forwards. But it doens't seem very fast and it takes energy to reduce the buoyancy of the blimp part.

But gravity isn't a 'power source'. If you drop something, sure it gains energy as it falls, but you had to lift it up, which takes energy. A blimp works by displacing the heavier air around it, like a balloon under water. It wants to float up, but you have to push it down which takes work. The trick with lighter than air craft is that helium is naturally formed underground so the 'pushing down' part is already done, at least the first time.

I had thought of a somewhat similar idea for propellor-less propulsion method for underwater vehicles...basically, allow yourself to sink with vanes set to provide forward motion, then rise straight up (via blowing some ballast a la submarine), and repeat. Not perpetual motion, simply using the fact each time you head down, you aren't heading straight down :) (and technically when you head up, you don't have to head straight up). Hadn't thought of the air version, but it makes sense. Somebody had already beaten me to the water version ;) (dang, too late to the patent office ;) ). It's used in some submersible sensors that can travel long distances, slowly.

Oh this is too fun to pass up. But I think the post date was delayed. This was meant for April 1.

First of all, our illustrious "theoretical physicist" attended multiple colleges in the hotspot of American Research Academia, Mississippi, in the sixties, though apparently his brilliance left him too impatient to actually *graduate* from any of those colleges... unless among all his other memberships in volunteer organizations, he just forgot to mention it. But he does use a lot of fancy sounding words that mean very little, so perhaps he's brilliant after all. Nevertheless, he has been hired as a theoretical physicist, by, oh ... himself... not too discriminating of himself.

I am excited he is looking to gravity as a "power source". I've been similarly thinking we could modify municipal power plant generators to be "powered" by coiled metal springs. I also have a car that needs no engine, as long as you start at the *top* of the hill.

My favorite part is his plan to harness the kinetic energy of the "wind" going over the wings of the plane while it glides.... (since it is not wind. It is stationary air. The plane is doing the moving.) Therefore, instead of forward thrust turbines using fuel, he plans to have turbines pointed backwards to harness the kinetic energy of the airplane. Of course if you take kinetic energy away from the plane's motion instead of adding to it, it's going to slow down and not fly very well. The aeronautical term for this is drag, which no doubt he learned at his many AIAA meetings (if not AA meetings). Ah, but his clever plan is to minimize drag of the generator... which is the same as minimizing the force applied to the generator turbine. I guess he can't decide whether he wants to consume the forward energy or conserve it. Gotta make up your mind, professor.

As for the boyancy thing, remember that if you want to inflate a balloon underwater, you have to lift a column of water the size of that balloon all the way to the surface. Yes, that column of water pushing down will leverage the balloon (and your seaglider) to the surface. But since -you- were the one to lift the column of water, it'weren't free energy!

I was going to poke fun at all the quack "science", but it would just go on too long. This guy needs to find a job. Not in science.

Wow. Vicious crowd tonight.

Similar systems, based on buoyancy in water, already exist:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021003075710.htm

I have recently invented a "gravity powered elevator." It is essentially a metal box which descends very quickly on a steel cable. Sometimes I just leave the cable right out. The good news is that I have perfected the down part 100%. I am not having as much success with the up part. I figure this elevator can be used by people who need to go from a high floor to a low floor. Really fast. Most of them will survive the trip. And when I say most, of course, I mean none of them.

Likewise, I believe this gravity plane will serve as an excellence method of transportation for people traveling from say... Denver to Death Valley. Very high to very low. What if they want to get back to Denver? What do I look like? I'm a scientificist, not a travel agent.

Actually, Spud, someone patented that idea already, seeing as ALL elevators use gravity on the 'down' part. You should speak with JK Rowling. I believe she knows a young man who can help you with the 'up' part. He can help you avoid patent infringement if you try using counterweights (also gravity) and electric motors and such...

I’m just as skeptical of this idea as anyone else is about this subject, but I just can’t resist pointing out the bit of wood in ‘Isaac Newton Jr.’ eye. First off, thank you for doing some actual research and pointing out some obviously questionable thinking instead of just being belittling. However, the dirty little secret is that your pappy, Isaac Newton Senior, was obsessed with alchemy, believed light embodied the Word of God, and when he published his work Principia no one understood it. Also his work wasn’t ever completely fleshed out and others had to build and modify his theories over time with a great deal of research. Moral of the story, don’t dismiss ideas so quickly based on what you ‘know’ is fact, who knows maybe he’s on to something. Then again maybe he is just nuts.

guys, this isn't breaking any laws of thermodynamics. It's using helium to gain height, like an airship, then exchanging the height for speed, like a glider.
The energy is probably used pretty efficiently, as using helium for lift is going to be very efficient compared to a conventional plane.
Where does the energy enter the system from? obviously not gravity! It comes from compressing the helium, which requires energy.

This argument about great scientists not being accepted in their own time is a favorite among quacks. It's invariably on the websites of people like this. The thinking is sound: People didn't believe Isaac Newton, people don't believe me, therefore I am Isaac Newton. Can't argue with that!

Nevertheless I don't know what you mean by "quickly" dismissing his ideas. I was dismissing his logic and ignorance of experimental evidence. Currently accepted theories of mechanics have libraries full of evidence corroborating them. If he wants to turn those all on their head, the burden is on him to give a sound explanation for how all that evidence could have been misunderstood. I am simply pointing out that he does not demonstrate enough understanding of those theories to qualify himself to challenge them. It is not I who am quick to dismiss, but he who so hastily dismisses hoards of evidence that suggest he's bogus while at the same time calling himself a scientist.

It is his willingness to ignore this and mislead those who lack the knowledge to challenge his "science" that leaves me less than polite about rebuking his statements.

quote
People didn't believe Isaac Newton, people don't believe me, therefore I am Isaac Newton. Can't argue with that!
/quote

This is actually the fallacy of undistributed middle term in a syllogism. A clearer example of the fallacy:
All ravens are black.
This bowling ball is black.
Therefore this bowling ball is a raven.

Holy Crap! No wonder the ball keeps flying over the pins! I been throwin' a raven down the alley all this time!!!!!

hey tossers! how did we get to this bloody argument when its about that plane up there! come on. by the way, i like that joke above me, its kind of funny.