Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

[Wheeler]

So Michael are you saying gravity is braking down?
Sorry Ralph I know you could make most of everyones head spin with the knowledge you have in turbines .

[Michael]

edit

[winkle]

i don't understand how gravity can be considered as a outside force

seems like gravity is part and parcel of every thing that exist

this business of saying gravity is an outside force to a overbalanced wheel or anything else does not seem correct to me

if you were to build a true pm wheel would it first have to be shielded from gravity and then made to turn?

a water wheel uses water to turn the wheel but there is the same amount left after turning the wheel as there was before

heat and gravity is the engine that drives a water wheel

if gravity is the fuel that turns the wheel is there less of it or the same amount after the wheel has turned

if the fuel is not burned in some fashion
whats the deal on that?

is it still called fuel or outside force

what does gravity smell like when it burns

[pstroud]

Hello winke!

You stated:

if you were to build a true pm wheel would it first have to be shielded from gravity and then made to turn?

I disagree. A gravity wheel can not be shielded from gravity. It is inherent that it must endure gravity and must therefore embrace it as its own fundamental building block to function.

Ok guys, I'm not in NC any more. I'm in Plymouth, MN tonight and my 1 hr jet lag says go to sleep!

May be Best Wheel Win! :o)

Preston

[AgingYoung]

Ralph,

This is what I mean about perception, All in one sentence you say "gravitry wheel" and "no energy input", how can it be both. gravity is energy a gravity wheel would rely on that energy just as as combustion engine relies on gas.

Gravity engine uses gravity input for fuel! It is not a closed loop.
Perpetual motion uses no fuel! and therefore considered a closed loop.

Finally some progress. I was hoping it would get to this point. As you can see people use different terms or the same terms having different meanings to describe what they perceive. That's another variable. Yet what they perceive hasn't changed.

In the example of the flat earth people had their perceptions yet the earth was pretty much then what it is now. That reality hasn't changed. How we see reality and as you pointed out the terms we use do change.

As I understand it the definition of perpetual motion has changed over time. I'm in no position of authority to define terms for the rest of the world to use. I'm not sure of any authority that would consider gravity a fuel. I instigated a rather good debate on the Randi forum about gravity and the points that it was either a force or an acceleration were made. Both sides had their merits but I prefer to consider it a force. May the fuel be with you.

Gene

[rlortie]

Gene,

After reading your above post containing my quote, I see where I said "Gravity is energy".. That was a Boo-boo on my part. I do not consider gravity as energy but rather a force with energy potential. Like gasoline setting in a can, it does not show any energy but we know it has the potential. add an oxidizer and a kindling point and you have energy.

Same with gravity, it is a potential, drop a mass and watch it work.

Ralph

[ME]

my 2 euro ct:

I think a gravity PM wheel should be in a constant state of falling where it finds its lowest energy point, as where slowing down would require more energy from the system.
fyi: Gravity is not an energy, but a force acting on all the stuff. controlled leverage (or overbalancing) is one way to make something fall and rise at the same time. The question is: how can we make a wheel rotate like a leaf whirling in the wind?

[james kelly]

Here, we have a catch 22. Now, go back and consider the water eheel. After its use, you still have the same amount of water left over. With gravity, you can't use it up. after its use the same amount is still left. jim kelly

[Wheeler]

James
Hello
You may have written your sentence incorrectly.
I think?

[james kelly]

Misspelled yes, but not incorrect. jlk

[Wheeler]

So your thought is that both water and gravity have something left after it is used?
I may be misunderstanding you on this.

[Paul]

Michael wrote: "A weight raised in a gravity field is no different than storing potential in a spring"

YES, this is true. This concept cause me to do a reasoning: it could be that the "energy" is obtained from the linearity difference between two conservative energy systems when they interact ?? like spring and gravity or gravity and magnetic or magnetic and spring an so on. This thread is very interesting, compliments to all.

Paul

[Jon J Hutton]

The scientific "world" really blew it when they made "law" something they could not prove (PM). We are not (example) trying to reflect more light than the object produces. We are simply using gravity in a way one or two people in all of history have ever done.

My wheel is almost finished!

[jim_mich]

A weight raised in a gravity field is no different than storing potential in a spring.

In reply I say, "An object pushed into a constant steady wind in no different than storing potential in a spring."

Science considers gravity to be conservative while they consider wind to be not conservative, why is this? This is because the energy source behind wind is known, while gravity is still a mystery to most people. If gravity is caused by unequal ether energy pressure (as I believe) then gravity is an imbalance of energy that exhibits force. Gravitational force is different on different planets, which proves it is not constant, but varies like the wind according to circumstances. As such there may be some way to harness this energy.

You might ask, "What proof is there of such a thing as ether energy?" If you place two rotatable discs next to each other separated by a thin solid barrier and spin one disc at high speed, the other disc will start spinning also. The molecules in the spinning disc impinge a small amount of ether energy causing it to spin. The ether energy passes through the solid barrier and hits molecules in the second disc causing it to also spin. If you enclose an electric motor inside a sealed box and measure how fast it falls, it will fall faster when the motor is spinning. The spinning motor hits some ether energy and flings it radially outward so there is less ether energy for the remaining motor molecules to collide with. The result is less resistance to movement and the spinning motor falls faster. A spinning artillery shell travels faster and farther than a non-spinning shell.

I don't know of any specific test to prove ether energy exists, yet there are many examples (like those above) that make more sense when considered from an ether energy point of view.

[Michael]

Hi Jim. When physicists say energy is conservative it's just another way of saying 1 + 1 = 2 not 3, or 1 for that matter. It's means not more, and not less.

Science considers gravity to be conservative while they consider wind to be not conservative, why is this?

The wind/or, the energy fueling a wind is conservative. It can be measured how that wind is generated and where the source comes from. The energy that fuels wind, when it is in transition and is called wind, if it were to gain energy from a zero source, or lose energy in an unexpainable fashion, then it wouldn't be conservative.
Even if gravity were fueled by an infinite source of ether energy, it's behaviour is still conservative. What's conservative about gravity is the acceleration constant. Were gravity to make it's acceleration constant switch or change without adding energy/ mass, or taking away energy/ mass, then it would be said that gravity isn't conservative.