Risks for the inventor?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

User avatar
ken_behrendt
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
Location: new jersey, usa
Contact:

re: Risks for the inventor?

Post by ken_behrendt »

winkle wrote:
Ken as near as i can figure out what you're saying is that the weights on a gravity wheel will loose mass and power the wheel with that loss of mass

even if you're ideas were correct there is this problem with you're thoughts

you have first got to get the weights and wheel moving with gravity being the only source of power

gravity being the starter i belive gravity will be the only power source

looks to me like if you're loss of mass idea could work at all all you need to do is get a balanced wheel give it a good push and the loss of mass on one side would keep it going

perhaps i'm just not understanding you're new law correctly

Winkle...

You obviously understand the essence of Bessler's 4th Law of Motion which is just that in an chronically overbalanced wheel, the average vertical velocity of the weights is always downward. The weights "drop", however, without accelerating and it is their constant "dropping" motion, as far as gravity ("Mr. Gravity") is concerned that causes them to continuously lose an infinitesimal quantity of their masses per wheel rotation (I think I calculated that the weights in the Kassel wheel would only lose about 3 picograms of mass per wheel rotation!). What happens to this lost mass? It is, according to Einstein's famous Mass - Energy Equivalence Equation converted directly into the kinetic energy that the wheel outputs and which accelerates the wheel and can perform "useful" work external to the wheel.

There is no need to give such a system an initial push to get it started. As we see with Bessler's one-directional wheels, the process of mass loss by the wheel's weights automatically starts the instant that the wheel's restraints are released.

Note that this new law of motion only applies to overbalanced wheels. That is, the conversion of drive weight rest mass into kinetic energy can only occur when the average or net vertical velocity of the weights is downward and this condition only exists when the CG of the rotating system of weights is offset from the wheel's axle or "axis of rotation".

When one applies the 4th Law to a balanced wheel one must set the separation distance between the wheel's axle and the CG of the weights to zero. Thus, in a balanced wheel, the two centers of rotation coincide and are located at the axle of the wheel. The 4th Law then predicts that the average or net vertical velocity of the weights is zero. Well, since there is neither average or net upward or downward vertical motion in such a wheel, the masses of its weights will not change no matter how fast it is initially rotated. It will merely spin for a while until air resistance and bearing friction finally dissipate all of the kinetic energy initially imparted to its structures.


ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:

Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
justme
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:00 pm

re: Risks for the inventor?

Post by justme »

should i make a new topic with the title "safe way to commercialize free energy"?
User avatar
primemignonite
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am

Re: re: Risks for the inventor?

Post by primemignonite »

Michael wrote:Winkle, you'll find the full explanation complimented with imaginative examples of Kens Law, in the Lewis Carroll book of physics. Subtitled through the looking glass.
Michael,

Where could one find a copy of this particular edition, containing such information? You must have one yourself? |:)

Cheers!

James
james kelly
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:04 pm

re: Risks for the inventor?

Post by james kelly »

ROFLMAO
Post Reply