1. Who did not learn to use physical units correctly can hardly be expected to do pages over pages of electrical calculations right.

2. Giving detailed blueprints for electric devices without reporting results obtained with experimental realizations of such devices destroys any credibility.

3. Conclusion: Who loves to waste his time should take a closer look to this proposal.

Thank you for your answer, Dr. Ulrich Mutze. Best wishes

U may need a black hole to produce what u quoted

Dear K.M. Sudheer, thank you for your answer. Yes i think the proposed device is not realistic. Best wishes

@Tolga

if it would work, it would be a gigantic idea, irrespective of hydropower. It is, however, simply a crackpot-idea.

The idea is based on other ideas, one of them is a "Gravity Control Cell", a Process and Device for Controlling Locally the Gravitational Mass and the Gravity Acceleration, based on the "discovery" of a correlation between gravitational and inertial mass. I seem to remember that the correlation was figured out during 1915 or so, and has been tested extensively using Lunar laser ranging etc. As Ulrich points out, making a drawing does not demonstrate a workable system, and some of the claims in the write-ups sounds like gobbledygook. The 'patents' claimed are sheer nonsense. The only danger this has is us spending any more time on it.

Thank you, Ludwig, for your answer. All best wishes.

Ulrich Mutze, The black hole got a look in here (see K. M. Sudheer's comment). But the black hole is nonsense too.

1) According to Einstein his field equations couple his gravitational field to its material sources and his energy-momentum tensor describes the material sources. According to Einstein, everything that is not the gravitational field is matter.

(2) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there is present a material source (e.g. a star or a black hole). In this case the only solution is the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for R_{uv} = 0.

(3) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there are no material sources present whatsoever (de Sitter’s empty universe for R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv}).

(4) Thus, by (1), (2) and (3) according to Einstein and his followers material sources are both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. That’s impossible! Hence, material sources can’t be both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0, contrary to the claims of Einstein and his followers. So (1), (2) and (3) are inconsistent.

(5) For (1) and (3) to be consistent, energy-momentum tensor = 0 means there are no material sources present, by mathematical construction. Indeed, that is the meaning gleaned from (1) and the very expression energy-momentum tensor = 0. Claim (2) is then inconsistent with (1) and (3). Therefore (2) is false. The black hole comes from (2). The black hole is therefore false. On the other hand, if (1) and (2) are supposed consistent, then (3) is false, and the Universe is spatially infinite, is eternal, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat, because the only solution when energy-momentum tensor = 0 is the ‘Schwarzschild solution’, which excludes multiple material sources.

(6) Neither the supposed consistency of (1) and (2) nor the consistency of (1) and (3) bear any relation to the actual Universe because the actual Universe contains more than one material source. R_{uv} = 0 and R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv} are physically meaningless. Nonetheless Einstein and his followers keep them both. Moreover, energy-momentum tensor = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity itself because neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in black hole universes or empty universes. Thus, black hole universes and empty universe are again utterly false

Thank you for your comments, Stephen. All best wishes

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

May be lesser black holes

Is it true

http://www.fuellesspower.com/6_Gravity2.htm

K. M. Sudheer, See my previous post. There is no black hole anywhere, let alone in a binary system in Cygnus X-1. This report from the Hubble scientists is nonsense.

Ответ по моему достаточно прост. Электрическая энергия - это движение электронов. Чтобы привести их в движение, надо затратить внешюю энергию. Но эта энергия будет больше , что гравитационная. Как говорится, дело не стоит и выеденного яйца.

Dear Vasiliy, terribly sorry i cannot understand russian language, only few words like you mentioned electric energy. If possible, would you mind to explain again in english?

To Henk, thank you, yes the paper that i cited by de Aquino describes a method to convert gravitational energy into electric energy. Best wishes

Henk Smid, I am well aware of the topic on this thread. K. M. Sudheer introduced black holes here, not I. I responded to this false notion. In my explanatory post it is clear that black holes are nonsense. Despite the claims of Einstein and his followers, material sources can't be both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. So your assumption of a "very heavy black hole" is false.

hi stephen;

appreciates ur answer...

There is difference of opinion when the mass

 Yes it is possible.see my project

Dear Members, See the attached link. https://youtu.be/NTKw2Hp6tPw

Now I explain in simple words how it will work. In the video you can see a seesaw having two ball each side .the red color ball side arm of seesaw is slightly heavier than green color side arm.the weight of each ball is 30 gram and weight of each box is 20 gram. The red ball is a counterweight and green ball will work to create energy. The green ball will be free to move but counterweight will be permanently mounted. Now I explain: When I lift the arm of green color ball up to a certain height and then you can see the movement of ball in the video that ball is moving due to a slope . But when I left the arm then the ball is getting back it's previous position or in other words the seesaw is getting back it's horizontal position due to overunity. It is totally against physics laws as ,as per physics laws the seesaw shouldn't get back it's horizontal position but in the video you can see it clearly. Now replace this ball with 10 kg.ball and counterweight 10.200 kg.and calculate input and output using potential energy formula. In this mechanism don't think about input as input will be very minimal but think about output. The movement of ball in the box will work as a output so the length of arm and length of box will be also important. The ball mass=10 kg. The length of arm is=1 meter The length of box is=80 cm. The width will be depend on the diameter of ball. Now calculations: Input is very minimal Output if a 10 kg ball will be rolled down from 10 cm height(though the height will be more) than using potential energy formula 10*10*.80=80 joule So the output will be 10 joule but input will be very minimal. I would like to insist on some following points. (1)the angle of box will be 45degree downside(see the Sketch) (2) two piston generator will be mounted on the sidewall of the box. If still you have any doubts then please tell me. (3)there is overunity in this mechanism otherwise seesaw wouldn't get back it's horizontal position. I request you that if you any doubt regarding to understanding then please tell me as I am ready to clear your all doubts. Vikram Kumar Gupta

You can't create new physics with mathematics.On contrary mathematics are the tools to describe laws of nature.I would appreciate if the author of gravitational motor would disprove the GTR and the equivalence principle rather that encompass to his theory all known physics in order to be at the top of everything and in parallel not to be in conflict with the existing knowledge.Either it is that the distribution of energy, momentum and stresses curves space-time or not.Meaning that the momentum of the mass that contributes to the increase of its inertia also contributes to the increase of space-time curvature.Thus gravitational mass/inertial mass = 1.I tried to read his article and noticed the following statement : " On

the other hand, as we

know, the gravitational force is

conservative

. Thus, gravitational

energy, in agreement with the energy

conservation law, can be expressed

by the

decrease

of the inertial energy,

i.e., ΔΕg = - ΔΕi " page 7 out of pages 77.

The way he asserts it, is that he cannot discriminate between a conservative force that means independent of the path and conservation of energy.Overthere I gave up reading further.

To answer to that question : No I don't believe that based on that article gravitational energy can be directly converted to electrical energy.No further comments about the first 7 pages that I read.Unbelievable........

somebody made this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i84EH93u8f0 but none of them really demoed 24*7 unstopping operation by far.