If you're failing at PM, we're in good company

[ArchCalc]

None of the PM heavyweights have commented at all.
Could they offer some encouragement?

[WaltzCee]

.https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi ... 65#p201365
.

That’s not how science works.
No one “changed” the definition. There’s isn’t a conspiracy designed to frustrate anyone.
If someone built a working device it would still adhere to the definition.

How does science werk? We know words/meanings change over time & PM is no exception.

To too two many strawmen in your comments.

• How can a working GPGD* fit into contemporary scientific physics understanding?

*Gravity Powered Gravity Driven

[eccentrically1]

.https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi ... 65#p201365
.

That’s not how science works.
No one “changed” the definition. There’s isn’t a conspiracy designed to frustrate anyone.
If someone built a working device it would still adhere to the definition.

How does science werk? We know words/meanings change over time & PM is no exception.

To too two many strawmen in your comments.

• How can a working GPGD* fit into contemporary scientific physics understanding?

*Gravity Powered Gravity Driven

PM has always been defined as a device that works forever (infinite output) without any input.
The earliest attempts were gravity wheels. There are other examples in the link I posted.
Unfortunately, B. said he found his where everyone had looked, giving the impression it was a gravity wheel.
Since gravity wheels didn't work it became obvious to look elsewhere. But even the successful devices were shown to have an energy source.
A gravity wheel fits into current understanding the same as it always has; they don't work.

[WaltzCee]

.https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi ... 11#p138911
.
from wiki

Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources - such as ocean currents - are indeed capable of moving "perpetually" until that energy source runs down. They are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems.

We didn't always know the Earth wasn't always going to exist. Once we found out the Earth was doomed, our understanding of PM changed.

The definition has changed over time.

I don't know when we learned there was no energy in gravity.

My question:

• How can a working GPGD* fit into contemporary scientific physics understanding?

[eccentrically1]

Once someone builds a working gravity wheel, then we'll figure out how it fits into current understanding. Until then, it fits as a violation of current understanding; meaning it can't be done.
I think we've always known earth was doomed ever since we first tried to design a gravity wheel.
How do you think the definition changed? Because of windmills or waterwheels? I don't think people were that naive.

[Fletcher]

How can a working GPGD* fit into contemporary scientific physics understanding?

* GPGD => Gravity Powered Gravity Driven *

The key to the question, and the answer, is in the meaning and use of the word 'Power' ..

Power is the Rate of Using Energy (simplified) ..

To be 'Gravity Powered' then Gravity would have to supply the Power (Energy) .. * Energy is the capacity to do Work ..

A gravitational field can transform PE to KE - ask any waterwheel - but what energy source lifted up the water for it to run downhill in the first place ? .. it was this initial first-stage Prime Mover that 'powered' the waterwheel .. so you might reduce the argument to -- a waterwheel is a Solar Powered Gravity Driven (SP GD) device, capable of doing Work ..

Applying that same reduction we can't therefore have a GPGD PM wheel .. something else was the source of the initial energy that gave the internal weights both height restoration PE and height residual KE, which was thereafter transformed via the gravity field interaction with circulating weights into greater system momentum/KE ..

It is that initial first-stage source of replenishable energy entering the circulating system that "Powers" the Gravity Driven device .. i.e. ?P-GD .. we seek the " ? " and its mechanical form and application to the second-stage GD, which is capable of doing the external Work (like the waterwheel) ..

[Senax]

It is that initial first-stage source of replenishable energy entering the circulating system that "Powers" the Gravity Driven device .. i.e. ?P-GD .. we seek the " ? " and its mechanical form and application to the second-stage GD, which is capable of doing the external Work (like the waterwheel) ..

e.g. induced earth reaction.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I did find a way to lift the weights back up. So far, all it has brought me is ridicule--------------Sam

[Fletcher]

I did find a way to lift the weights back up. So far, all it has brought me is ridicule--------------Sam

And that is the scientific conundrum Sam .. Energy is the capacity to do Work - force is not energy - however f x d is Joules which aligns with Energy under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle ((same units) - Principle is a Theory), therefore interchangeable .. this gives a symmetry between energy and force x displacement ..

To lift back up (fully reset) your COM (all the way up) either requires you to "fool" the Law of Levers (LOL's), in which case you have invented/discovered a new type of "energy" which you call 'gravity energy' (gravity capacity to do Work) .. or .. if you can't fool the LOL's new energy must enter or be appropriated to the partially-open self-moving system ..

You are in good company with plenty of others agreeing with you that gravity is 'actual energy per se' and not an acceleration or field of potential that in the presence of mass is a force (weight force) as per scientific doctrine - all that remains to be done, whatever your view of what energy is, is to close the loop and produce a self-moving wheel .. that applies to all of us and our theories/hypotheses..

If your wheel can fully reset and have enough momentum left over to accelerate and self-perpetuate the rotation indefinitely then you have a runner, and you totally smash the argument about what is and what is not "energy" .. the physics books would have to be rewritten (LOL's demoted from a Law to a Theory for starters, and WEEP totally consigned to the dust heap) and a lot of physicists reapply for their jobs and take a big pay cut lol .. there would be no ridicule I can assure you ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher. What can I say? Or where to start?

Ridicule probably wasn't the best word to use. Disregarded is more accurate. Of coarse I'm referring to the so called Ring & Rollers that you did a Sim of. There isn't any levers involved. It's like the rings roll the heavy discs up hill as the wheel turns; all the way up. There are two 8 pound rollers in each drum. It lifts the 16 lbs. effortlessly.

It's quite obvious that it works, yet it has received zero recognition. My conclusion can only, that it is so subtitle, so unique, so simple, that you don't recognize the importance of it, or place any value on it. Then, to make matters worse, Tarsier tells me it's old hat; not unique. Also I should add, the rollers don't turn the wheel, they just lift the weights that do.

There is energy in falling weights, a lot of energy. It's the falling weights that turn the wheel, not gravity by it's self. Why is that so difficult to understand? I don't know what WEEP is.

It's hopeless to try and explain it------------------Sam

[Robinhood46]

Sam
Some of us try explaining the difficulties we have with communication. Which is quite ironic really, because not many of us seem to understand how bad the problem really is, because it's too difficult to communicate the problem of communication.
What you are telling us and what people are judging are two different things. The wheel that Tarsier (for example) is telling you will not work, isn't exactly identical to the wheel that you are telling us will work.
Tarsier knows that his interpretation of what you are explaining will not work, and he is probably correct, it will not work, it is a failure like all the others similar to it.
You think it will work, because there is a detail that you are unable to explain in a sufficiently accurate way for the rest of us to actually understand. When we finally understand the detail that you are getting all excited about, either we will also get very excited about it, or someone will explain the problem with the detail, in away that you can understand, why it doesn't work. The reason nobody can convince you of your mistake, if there is one, is because they don't know what the mistake is that you may or may not be making.
I for one share your enthusiasm and would very much like to understand the detail, but i haven"t got a clue what it is, so i cannot share my view that you are fooling yourself, or that i think you are onto something.
Keep at it, and don't get too disheartened by the opinion of other members who think that a wheel, very similar to the one you are talking about, is definitely a failure.

[Tarsier79]

Well said RH.

Sam. If you think something will work, building it might be the only way to confirm it, or learn why it doesn't.

Good luck.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Robinhood46,
I guess you are right; it's unobvious for some reason. Tarsier, I have only demonstrated that it lifts the weights,( along with Fletchers simulation). Maybe, if I complete the rest of it, things would change and thanks, I will need some luck with it-----------------Sam

[JUBAT]

I did find a way to lift the weights back up. So far, all it has brought me is ridicule--------------Sam

So you have a runner? I only recall posts from you saying, "Another dead duck..." I don't remember reading any announcement that you have a runner so I'm sorry I missed it if in fact you posted it.

Lifting weights is all well and good, but sadly a runner is the only thing that will officially be considered a success.

What's the word Sam?

[johannesbender]

I did find a way to lift the weights back up. So far, all it has brought me is ridicule--------------Sam

@Sam , I cant comment on your design because I don't know how it looks or works currently , and secondly you have it in front of you so you would know if it works or fails.

@a_general_comment
I can comment in general , on what we mean with the weight has to be lifted back , a pendulum lifts its weight on the upswing , a lever lifts weight on its load side , a pulley lifts weight on the load side , a ball bounces back up to an extend ,the dog only creeps as far as the chain allows if the chain was energy then the dog can only reach further with more energy...

None of them "as is" in these examples can lift the mass back to its original height or even higher than its original height , the original height needs to be restored on minimum to have a valid restart/reset .

If we use the falling of mass to drive , then for the mass to keep driving in a repeatable manner without coming to a halt ,it needs to reach its original height again to be able to fall again with the same energy output.
If it does not reach its original height again , lets say it reaches less than the original height , if it were to drive from falling from this now lesser height , the energy output becomes less and less as long as it continues untill it had none left.
If it reaches higher than its original height , it can drive with more output if allowed to.

In simpler words the rule is :
For zero losses the output is equal to the input , that is to say the output height is equal to the input height , this is a special case.
For cases with losses like the real world with air drag and friction etc ,the output height is less than the input height.

That means if a weight is on a wheel or stiff rod such as a pendulum , and it has an axle as the center of rotation , if the weight is released from any height , and left under its own influence of gravity , the weight will not reach its original release height again , becausr there has been losses and the losses account for the total amount of missing height in energy terms.

So if someone have a device that can restore a weight that has fallen back to its original height , under its own influence or energy , not assisted by another motive power ,in the face of friction and drag , then that individual have managed to create a device that could lift itself back to reset/restart , and that counts as a self sustaining device because if such a device were to be rotational or pendulum in form , should ,if released from its starting position on its very own continue to move , until interrupted.

@Sam if you have such a device that lifts its weight back to its starting position or higher , then you have it.