Is gravity different from a spring?

[Mac]

Hey guys,

"Is gravity different from a spring?"

Yes, of course it is. Thought I'd answer that before someone goes nuts on me. ;)

However, for the purpose of a gravity powered wheel (on earth), let's see how an object is affected:

1. Gravity exerts force on the object in one direction only (downward).
2. To be affected by this "downward" force, the object must first be moved above it's resting point.

Now let's look at a pull spring (o-\\\\\\\\\-o) attached to an object:

1. It exerts force on the object in one direction only (returning to its original position).
2. To be affected by this "returning" force, the object must first be moved away from it's resting point (to stretch the spring).

What's my point? Pretty simple actually. If a gravity powered wheel will run, a spring powered device (in space perhaps?) should be able to run as well.

It would obviously require different mechanisms, but the premise is basically the same - the potential energy of gravity must first be "loaded" (an object lifted) just like a spring's potential energy must be "loaded" by extending, compressing, or bending (depending on the spring type).

In fact, springs might actually have an advantage, in that different strengths can be applied to the same mass, and in different directions as well (something not directly possible with gravity).

And basically, leverage is leverage - whether trying to attain it by moving weights to and from the axis of a gravity wheel, or by moving a spring's attachment point to and from the pivot point of a lever.

Everyone seems to agree (I think?) that CF and/or momentum will eventually provide the missing power to run a gravity wheel. I think the same will hold true for a spring powered device. Perhaps the spring(s) would work a rocking lever with a connecting rod to a wheel - not sure yet.

Now if I can just get into this suit of armor before the rocks start flying... :D

Mac

[ken_behrendt]

Mac...

In principle, one would think that, IF we knew how to build an overbalanced gravity wheel, then we could just forget about using the gravitational force and simply attach springs to the weights to produce a similar effect. In fact, since we would be using springs, we could just go ahead and skip using the weights completely by attaching the ends of the springs directly to the ends of the levers that normally had the weights mounted on them.

Such a system would seem to have a lot of advantages. For example, it could operate in any orientation and would be far lighter than a bulky hollow drum containing shifting weighted levers. Without weights and the CF that their rotation gives rise to, such a wheel might be able to attain far higher rotational rates than possible for even Bessler's smallest wheels.

Since I believe, that in Bessler's gravity wheels, the kinetic energy that the devices outputted came from the energy associated with the masses of the weights, one wonder where the energy would come from in a working...er, "spring wheel"? In this case, the energy would have to come from the masses of the springs themselves.

Such a spring driven perpetual motion wheel is something we certainly can consider after we have unraveled the secret of Bessler's weight driven gravity wheels. Unless we fully understand Bessler's device first, however, then I can not see how one can proceed to design working spring wheels.


ken

[Mac]

Hey Ken,

Since I believe, that in Bessler's gravity wheels, the kinetic energy that the devices outputted came from the energy associated with the masses of the weights, one wonder where the energy would come from in a working...er, "spring wheel"? In this case, the energy would have to come from the masses of the springs themselves.

No... kinetic energy still would come from the mass of moving objects. The only difference is that their movement would be caused by springs instead of gravity.

An object on springs still has to be "loaded" (by first stretching the spring), just as an object attracted by gravity must be "loaded" by first lifting the object.

"Loaded" may not be the best terminology here, but I'm sure you guys know what I mean. ;)

Mac

[ken_behrendt]

Mac wrote:

No... kinetic energy still would come from the mass of moving objects. The only difference is that their movement would be caused by springs instead of gravity.

As I see it, if the resulting spring wheel contained no driving weights, then the KE would have to come from the mass of the springs themselves.

In a spring wheel, rotation would result from the constantly maintained differential in spring tenstion between one side of the wheel and the other side. That is, the wheel would constantly turn toward the side that exerted the greater degree of tension on its parts.


ken

[Mac]

As I see it, if the resulting spring wheel contained no driving weights, then the KE would have to come from the mass of the springs themselves.

Who said it wouldn't use weights? Or did my use of the word "object" cause confusion?

I mentioned that the mechanism would be different, but in order for CF and/or momentum to be used, the springs would have to move something (weights/objects) with enough mass to develop usable kinetic energy.

Gravity wheel principles would still apply, all that changes is the source of potential energy (from gravity to springs) and the mechanics used to harness that potential.

Mac

[ken_behrendt]

Mac wrote:

I mentioned that the mechanism would be different, but in order for CF and/or momentum to be used, the springs would have to move something (weights/objects) with enough mass to develop usable kinetic energy.

I think you and I have different conceptualizations of what the "spring wheel" would look like. Yes, the springs would have to move something, but it would not be weights as in the types of designs I regularly work with. The springs would only accelerate the mass of the drum itself. The wheel I am thinking of would not use CF, but rather would have some tricky mechanism that would keep the springs of one side of one of the wheels stretched farther than the springs on the other side.

Below is a quick Paint sketch of what I have in mind. The yellow wheel would contain the mechanism which would make it work. Right now, I haven't the faintest idea, however, of what that mechanism would look like. But, if it could be found, then I do not see any reason why this approach would not be workable.


ken

[Mac]

Actually a crank on the axle (similar to Bessler's pendulum illustration) with a spring attached would pull the wheel on 1/2 of a revolution just like gravity does on an off balance wheel.

Attempts to gain leverage (like shifting weights on a gravity wheel) would have to be achieved in some other fashion though. That's why I mentioned earlier the possibility of a pivoting lever (rocker arm?) with a connecting rod to the crank.

I'm thinking the rocker arm might be the best location for weights, although anchored springs could be attached to weights on an open faced rotating wheel (to closer mimic gravity) I guess.

Mac

[Fletcher]

Your reasoning is one that Michael expounds regularly & one that I also agree with. Effectively gravity acts like a spring i.e. is conservative & acts in one direction. Therefore, theoretically one should be able to 'replace' the force from gravity with a spring.

It is perhaps easier to see that a spring system can't work because of torque symmetry. By that I mean that any extension of the spring to give rise to potential energy must reoccur over & over for a wheel to continuously rotate & self-sustain. In reality the spring tensions always find the point where the tensions are equalized or are least (position of lowest potential energy in the system) so it can not self-sustain once set in motion. If you increase the spring tensions the wheel becomes 'bound up' & quickly stops.

I use your spring analogy as the 'acid test' to a design. If I think it looks workable I then imagine it with springs. Usually this cures my enthusiasm for the design *sigh*.

Ultimately I believe that Bessler used some other means to assist gravity i.e. he raised the gravitation potential of the mechs above what gravity could normally do by its own devices. If he found a way to do this (& I believe he did) then it would probably work just as effectively with a spring driven wheel. JMO's.

[Mac]

Hey Fletcher,

Your reasoning is one that Michael expounds regularly & one that I also agree with. Effectively gravity acts like a spring i.e. is conservative & acts in one direction. Therefore, theoretically one should be able to 'replace' the force from gravity with a spring.

Really? Then I guess everyone here pretty much agrees with the "spring" theory. Lol, and here I thought I'd had a revelation... :/

It is perhaps easier to see that a spring system can't work because of torque symmetry. By that I mean that any extension of the spring to give rise to potential energy must reoccur over & over for a wheel to continuously rotate & self-sustain.
---
I use your spring analogy as the 'acid test' to a design. If I think it looks workable I then imagine it with springs. Usually this cures my enthusiasm for the design *sigh*.

Yeah, unfortunately the same thing must be overcome with gravity, but it prolly is easier (for most of us anyway) to visualize how a spring works against an object rather than the invisible (and somewhat mysterious?) force of gravity.

Lol, so now we prolly seem more like fringe lunatics than I even realized.... :/

Thanks, Mac

[ovyyus]

How can more energy come out of a spring than is put into it? IMO, either Gravity is not like a spring or PM is impossible.

[Fletcher]

How can more energy come out of a spring than is put into it?

IMO gravity is just like a spring in that you can not extract more energy from mass than the Potential Energy it starts with. Gravity can cock a spring to do work elsewhere in the cycle but we are no better off, as most of us have found to our disappointment.

IMO, either Gravity is not like a spring or PM is impossible.

I take the third option. Gravity in combination with friction is able to 'cock, lock, catch & latch' things but precisely because it always acts downwards (as a vector quantity) can not be made to displace something to provide useable torque without assistance from something else.

What that something else is eludes me right now /: but I will hazard that that something else is also affected by gravity (it exists in the natural world after all) but has certain properties that when used correctly can mitigate some of the torque symmetry found in gravity shifted only designs, leading to a true OOBW. You could say it has spring like qualities without all the downside ;)

Sorry for the 'go nowhere new' commentary but this is the 'theoretical framework' I work to & have to flesh out, to allow gravity powered wheels to be a possibility for me ;)

Not to dissimilar to your own thermal wheel concepts Bill, where another force or property exerts its influence on masses within a wheel to cause rotation. In a thermal wheel I would imagine that the thermal gradient is the primary force & the gravity shift the secondry force. In my scenario gravity may play an equal part in both complimentary systems as I see it.

[Mac]

How can more energy come out of a spring than is put into it?

It can't, but neither can that happen with gravity.

In order to realize potential energy from gravity (attraction to a mass), that mass must first be lifted, just like a spring must first be stretched.

IMO if Bessler was successful, he harnessed other forces involved such as momentum and/or CF, and either of these would still apply to a spring powered wheel.

In fact, the ability to have a vertical axis spring powered wheel might be quite an advantage. ;)

Mac

[scott]

IMO, either Gravity is not like a spring or PM is impossible.

Well, then pure gravity PM would be impossible, that is true. But not necessarily PM that utilizes gravity in concert with some other force in a novel way.

For me it always comes back to aerodynamics. After all, we only learned to fly about 100 years ago. What do you all think about the possibility of somehow using the magnus effect? In short, through a complex system of aerodynamic effects, the weight of a moving and spinning mass is automatically decreased. Makes me wonder.

The Magnus Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect

Lift of a rotating cylinder
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/cyl.html

More
http://www.geocities.com/k_achutarao/MAGNUS/magnus.html

-Scott

[ovyyus]

Can we accept that 'pure gravity PM' is impossible? Do we accept that 'pure spring PM' is impossible? If so, then I think it might be reasonable to accept that 0 + 0 gives 0. Therefore, no combination of gravity and/or springs, acting on their own against weights, can result in PM.

Then what is the missing element - what was Bessler's energy source?

Ken, I know your mass conversion theory attempts to provide a legitimate energy source. I wish it were more than a theory. Inertia conversion theories are in a similar situation - unapplied theories.

Chemical energy sources seem unlikely - I think Bessler didn't, at least to the best of his knowledge, cheat.

A latent heat source that was somehow made freely available through the action of an ingenious design might appear exactly like PM to Bessler.

I don't know what else it could be.

[LustInBlack]

Ovyyus, what happens when Leo do a full turn !? .. ;]


I think, Bessler did mention that overbalance is making his wheel turn. So you are saying that what *may* have caused that imbalance, is heat.

I don't know why, but I keep repeating Hard and Soft to myself..