Robinhood46 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:02 pm
If what you are saying is true, then i would have thought we would have found the solution years ago.
If gravity was used up by having an effect on a mass, then weighing oneself on scales would give a lower reading in the basement of a high-rise tower than on the top floor, because all the gravity used up, to hold everything above on the floors, would not be available to apply sufficient force on the scales in the basement. The difference that could be observed would only be due to the difference in altitude, not how much gravity is left over from moving everything above.
Gravity isn't a force that can be used up. Gravity is the observed effect of two masses moving in space that are mutually affecting the movement of each other. Both objects take the path of least resistance, the reduced resistance being created by the presence of the other object.
I don't think we need to worry about using it all up turning wheels.
preocupied is right. When I said that the Earth has 2.655694 x 10^30 joules of energy, a perpetual motion machine will consume that energy.
This means that the Earth's gravitational field would be slowed by rotating masses like the Moon. Like you, I doubt that will happen (enough machines will be built). Then the question
becomes what you asked, why hasn't perpetual motion been realized by now.
If my work on Bessler's Wheel is successful then it is because it wasn't considered possible. Gottfried Leibniz was a witness of Bessler which includes Bessler's trial. Also, in German language publications in the 1800's, Bessler was much discussed. Don't speak Deutsche? Then you wouldn't have read about him. Someone actually wrote a science paper about Bessler and made this known.
Bessler was know in German speaking countries but not in other countries. An example if you'll suffer me; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz4xDGUr91A
She had a YouTube channel called Alizee DeFan and unfortunately I recognized her so she doesn't do it any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx5iCJNOS3o
Last edited by Soon on Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
What if we are all wrong and there is a finite amount of energy rotating Earth? When an object enters Earth's gravitational pull, Earth gains rotational speed and when an object leaves Earth's gravity, it loses rotational speed. When an object rises Earth slows when an object falls Earth increases speed. If we use a perpetual motion machine we might spend that kinetic energy and not get it back. If we have one million kinetic energy and we use ten thousand a year then in 100 years we would completely use all of Earth's kinetic energy and in the mean time we will lose gravitational force. We could have a future gravity crisis. Everything could become lighter and Earth's rotation could slow with no way of getting the energy back. If Earth's gravity is simply caused by its velocity in a vacuum then we might add and take away from the velocity when we move up and down but if we perpetually move down or up more we would increase or decrease velocity. What if we speed up the rotation of the Earth? We could have a speed crisis. We already have a global warming crisis. Man made energy is a crisis. I really think every step necessary should be taken to combat global warming but using gravity can't be the solution it can only supplement it and then never be used again. Only use gravity for energy in cases of emergency.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Shadow, your concept working would be an ice breaker. And if what I know is right, you could match my 15% to the charity of your choice.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want something it will cost you something. We can go to 25/50.
We can even plot the math. Of course this would mean that 1/2 of the money earned from such an invention in its first year of sales would go to charity. Care to
discuss math? Discussing something is free. A working model is worth money. Over the next 2 weeks I'll be spending time learning calculus the
right way. I have my textbook and tablet. I'll have something to do. It is possible that when people don't understand math that they can't consider change.
I did send a link to this forum to Kate's Ag. With drought in Montana and around Calgary, Alberta, Canada, math has shown a trend. And I did post about desalination. This could help.
Last edited by Soon on Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SHADOW wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:45 am
Bientôt,
rien pout ta geule, voir ma signature!!!
tout pour le caritatif si ma tapette à mouche fontionne.
J.B
Coming soon,
nothing for your geule, see my signature!!
Anything for charity if my fly swatter melts.
J.B
Because I am an a$$hole, 100% of all profits from the first year sales goes to charity. After that you can keep what profits there are.
Care to bet against me? 100% profit first year to charity. I like money and I know I'm right. Someone wanted to weigh the scales of justice,
it's a blind person's balance, care to wager? It is for the charity of your choosing.
You can't lose because the dare can never be met. No charity can win from your bet. The question is, what will you wager when there is
nothing to lose? Nothing? So typical. Surprise me.
Last edited by Soon on Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
In basic terms, if what I post works, it is an invention. 100% of the money made in the first year will go to charity.
Shadow will choose the charity. And again, I am an a$$hole, this agreement will be accepted or there is no agreement.
I'll post a variation of Shadow's concept. If someone builds it and it works, the Devil is in the details. The first year monies
goes to charity. After that, it is Shadow's money.
It is a nice challenge but it's not Bessler's Wheel. Who is up for a free challenge?
je n'ai pas l'intention de breveter quoi que se soit.
l'arrangement trouvé fonctione théoriquement qu' unitairement.
la mis en place de plusieurs systémes sur une roue brise l'élan, ralenti la roue, et la met en équilibre
je pense que si l'on veut connecter plusieurs mécanismes sur un axe il faut passer par des roues libres de sorte qu'ils restent indépendant les uns des autres.
je pense que Jon Hutton sera confronté au même problème.
J.B
I have no intention of patenting anything.
the arrangement found functioned theoretically as unitarily.
the setting up of several systems on a wheel breaks the momentum, slows the wheel, and balances it
I think that if you want to connect several mechanisms on one axis you have to go through free wheels so that they remain independent of each other.
I think Jon Hutton will face the same problem.
J.B
Last edited by SHADOW on Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not too sure that a mechanism that only functions when alone, be it yours or Jon's, needs independent wheels on the same axle to multiply the effect and eliminate the balance created by the addition of other mechanisms. Independent arms on the same axis in the same wheel should be possible by having each arm only make contact with the wheel for a limited fraction of it's path.
In my opinion the first step is to maximise the effect, by playing with all the different variables, and then look for the interconnection between the different arms and the wheel.
Je pense que vous avez tous les deux raisons pour le développement.
Les bras ou l'autre bras devront être indépendant donc sur roue libre, et on revient pour ceux qui suivent à la différence fondamentale.
A++
I think you are both right about the development.
The arms or the other arm will have to be independent so on freewheel, and we come back for those who follow to the fundamental difference.
A++
Not everything I present is functional, but a surprise can't be completely ruled out.Greetings.
Essais du Weekend :
J’ai monté l'arrangement sur un levier pendulaire en bois.
L’arrangement fonctionne bien et se déclenche aux positions estimées et vues sur Algodoo.
J’ai utilisé ce que j’avais en stock, hélas trop lourd pour pouvoir mener l’essai à bien malgré la possibilité de varier la longueur du levier pendulaire.
Je dois refaire l’arrangement avec des éléments en alu ou en plastique aux dimensions testées sous Algodoo.
La densité générale sous Algodoo était de 2 et pour les poids de diamètre 6cm 2.4
A suivre J.B
Weekend Trials:
I mounted the arrangement on a wooden pendulum lever.
The arrangement works well and is triggered at the estimated positions and views on Algodoo.
I used what I had in stock, unfortunately too heavy to carry out the test despite the possibility of varying the length of the pendulum lever.
I have to redo the arrangement with aluminum or plastic elements with the dimensions tested under Algodoo.
The overall density under Algodoo was 2 and for weights of diameter 6cm 2.4
To follow J.B.
Attachments
Last edited by SHADOW on Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
algodoo a beaucoup trop de defaut et n est pas réaliste du tout exemple j ai construit une sorte de balance juste pour test en mettant 2 poids identiques a l opposé du balancier , logiquement ca devrait etre en equilibre et ca commencait a se balancer de droite a gauche de plus en plus fort..... y avait un autre logiciel mais en ligne , pas bcp mieux en gros ils ne savent pas trop gerer l equilibre ce qui fait qu on peut faire n importe quoi ca risque de fonctionner....que dans la theorie
Last edited by vlmmoa55 on Thu Sep 01, 2022 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
