The missing factor

[jim_mich]

Just like a gravity powered wheel should be possible. Now as to why they have not been accomplished I cannot say, but I suspect you have similar beliefs otherwise why would you be here on this forum?

No, gravity powered wheels are impossible. I'm here because the evidence shows that Bessler made a perpetual motion wheel. Since gravity wheels are impossible, then Bessler's PM wheel MUST have been rotated by some means other than gravity acting on OOB weights.

[John doe]

Why do you believe gravity wheels are impossible?

[jim_mich]

Gravity is a conservative force. It takes the same energy to raise a weight as the energy the weight gives as it falls. There is no way to make a weight weigh less as it rises and weigh more as it falls. Leveraging does not work. Making the weights move faster or slower does not work. Stated simply, nothing works for a gravity-rotated wheel. It can't be done.

But of course, most of the forum members are seeking a gravity-wheel.

[Tarsier79]

Jim. According to science, Motion wheels are impossible too, so Besslers wheel must have operated from a fuel source, even if that source was unknown to Bessler.

[jim_mich]

Jim. According to science, Motion wheels are impossible too,

Science only assumes that motion wheels are impossible. Science is not "all knowing" in this respect.

Standard scientific physics formula show that motions wheels do work.

[John doe]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I would like to see these "scientific standards and formulas". What is your definition of a motion wheel.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Gravity is a conservative force. It takes the same energy to raise a weight as the energy the weight gives as it falls. There is no way to make a weight weigh less as it rises and weigh more as it falls. Leveraging does not work. Making the weights move faster or slower does not work. Stated simply, nothing works for a gravity-rotated wheel. It can't be done.

But of course, most of the forum members are seeking a gravity-wheel.

Your statement in bold is only true when lifting a weight up and dropping it. Weight shifts on a wheel is a whole different ball game.

But at least with gravity you do have a constant force input to work with, whereas with a motion wheel you only have the energy what was first put it into the motion, and that was only a gentle push for Bessler's wheel. Experiment show us that pulling weights into the center will accelerate a wheel, but how do you pull the weights inward in a sealed wheel? Where does that force or energy come from? Experiments show us that when the weights are let go they move outwards and the wheel slows down again how can you stop this? Then there is the next energy input needed to pull the weights inward again, so where is the energy coming from to repeat the cycle.

Note , if you have the energy to pull two weights inward, then you would have twice the energy needed to pull one weight inward to make a gravity wheel, one weight outward and one inward on opposite sides of the wheel. If it is the intention to have a higher weight fall down to the center to lift the lower weight up to the center then its still a gravity operated wheel.

Experiments show us that if a wheel is constantly out of balance it will rotate for as long as it is out of balance.

The option for a motion wheel are very limited, the options for a out of balance wheel are in there thousands excluding the designs that did not work.

To make the assumption that gravity wheels are impossible based on the crap designs of the past, must mean it is a crap assumption.

[AB Hammer]

Gravity is a conservative force. It takes the same energy to raise a weight as the energy the weight gives as it falls. There is no way to make a weight weigh less as it rises and weigh more as it falls. Leveraging does not work. Making the weights move faster or slower does not work. Stated simply, nothing works for a gravity-rotated wheel. It can't be done.

But of course, most of the forum members are seeking a gravity-wheel.

Well Jim_Mich
That is the stance science takes when it comes to gravity. But sorry, it has been done but not in the old ways people try. You just have to learn to look at it differently. Away from how people have tried. Then and you will be able to see how it is done.

[getterdone]

Jim, I will agree with you about gravity being a conservative force. I don't think that there s any combination that can make extra weight appear within the wheel. However we do have an axle in the middle of the wheel and it can be used to remove weight , transfer weight to the floor, making one side heavier.

Doe s that make any sense ,or is my brain a bit warped?

[John doe]

Gravity is a conservative force. It takes the same energy to raise a weight as the energy the weight gives as it falls. There is no way to make a weight weigh less as it rises and weigh more as it falls. Leveraging does not work. Making the weights move faster or slower does not work. Stated simply, nothing works for a gravity-rotated wheel. It can't be done.

But of course, most of the forum members are seeking a gravity-wheel.

Well Jim_Mich
That is the stance science takes when it comes to gravity. But sorry, it has been done but not in the old ways people try. You just have to learn to look at it differently. Away from how people have tried. Then and you will be able to see how it is done.

At work we say sometimes you need a fresh set of eyes.

[Fletcher]

Gravity is a conservative force. It takes the same energy to raise a weight as the energy the weight gives as it falls. There is no way to make a weight weigh less as it rises and weigh more as it falls. Leveraging does not work. Making the weights move faster or slower does not work.Stated simply, nothing works for a gravity-rotated wheel. It can't be done.

But of course, most of the forum members are seeking a gravity-wheel.

Well Jim_Mich
That is the stance science takes when it comes to gravity. But sorry, it has been done but not in the old ways people try. You just have to learn to look at it differently. Away from how people have tried. Then and you will be able to see how it is done.

At work we say sometimes you need a fresh set of eyes.

See comments in Red above. Maybe it's an Americanism ? I'm from more reserved English stock. It is one thing to have a positive outlook and another to state "it has been done" and "then you will see how it is done" implying that the writer has actually witnessed it first hand and has the proof the other party has not been privileged to review.

As I say, maybe its just the lexicon from a particular area.

[ovyyus]

I agree with Tarsier79 and Fletcher's question is good.

[daxwc]

Still to cause a gravity wheel to rotate requires an unbalance. To create this unbalance means at least the drop of one atom of mass. This one atom needs to be picked up again at a reduction of force and energy; therefore one has to be able to beat mechanical advantage’s disadvantage or use another energy source.

"But did I not, in Part One, devote more
than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that
people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol
the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner,
wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the
raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then
people would say: "Now I understand!� AP pg 335

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Jim. According to science, Motion wheels are impossible too, so Besslers wheel must have operated from a fuel source, even if that source was unknown to Bessler.

Hi T79

What fuel source do you think it could have been?

I only ask to see if it could be viable.

[AB Hammer]

See comments in Red above. Maybe it's an Americanism ? I'm from more reserved English stock. It is one thing to have a positive outlook and another to state "it has been done" and "then you will see how it is done" implying that the writer has actually witnessed it first hand and has the proof the other party has not been privileged to review.

As I say, maybe its just the lexicon from a particular area.

Hi Fletcher

I am not one for talking class but for what is in green. BINGO! I have and seen acceleration and gain from gravity. Just working out a few bugs before I show. When showing I can not afford a mist-shift.