Is gravity different from a spring?

[LustInBlack]

I mean, wear, like parts wearing themself off.. Parts being worn down by friction !? ..

[Mac]

I mean, wear, like parts wearing themself off.. Parts being worn down by friction !? ..

Lol, I understand "wear" - but why do you think it's a fuel?

If you are referring to energy conversion, friction produces heat.

Mac

[ovyyus]

And gravity is the reason for the sun's power in the first place.

I thought nuclear reaction was the reason for the Sun's power. I think gravity facilitates the reaction by maintaining critical pressure, but it does not contribute energy to solar output.

[Mac]

And without mass, there's no gravity to sustain the reaction. Without a universe there's no mass... so why are we going down this path?

Lol, or is this going to determine somehow whether gravity acts similar to a spring (on earth)... :)
Mac

[ken_behrendt]

Ovyyus wrote:

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.

I, too, wish it was more than a theory as far as gravity wheels are concerned. But, sadly, at this point all I have is a plausible source for the energy Bessler's wheels outputted and the most probable means by which this as accomplished; that is, it was, most likely (IMO), done by an array of "simple" mechanisms that could each automatically and, most importantly, independently of each other and the wheel, adjust the position of its weights so that the CG of all of the weights present would always remain on the decending side of the rotating wheel. The self-adjustment of these mysterious mechanisms would have been solely in response to their local orientation in the Earth's gravity field and any CF forces acting on them due to wheel rotation.

It can be difficult to "keep the faith" to this simple approach in the face of all of the failures we mobilists continue to experience. But, I'm committed to my approach and intend to stick with it until I either find success or am forced to give up due to sheer mental and physical exhaustion. Apparently, in order to find Bessler's secret, the lucky mobilist must, in effect, become a second Bessler himself! I guess I'm half way there now because I have gotten PM's from members telling me how my "...Updates" thread over in the Community Buzz forum reminds them of Maschinen Tractate!


As far as the Sun's energy is concerned, its output is indeed created and maintained by the Sun's enormous internal pressures which are due to the mutual gravitational attraction of the material surrounding its core. But, the energy itself does not come from the gravity field, but, rather, from the lost mass of the nuclei at the core as they undergo nuclear fusion reactions there.

Large stellar bodies like stars are formed from vast clouds of hydrogen and helium gas that, under the action of mutual gravitation, slowly collect and form a rotating body of high density gases. As the gases collect into a rotating spherical form, they lose gravitational potential energy and a slight amount of mass which is turned into the increased kinetic energy that they accumulate. But, because the gas particles are confined within the spherical mass, they collide with each other with greater and greater frequency. Their increased kinetic energy and collision frequency are equivalent to an increase in temperature and pressure and this will increase exponentially as one considers gaseous material closer and closer to the exact center of the sphere. At the center the temperature and pressure will be the highest.

As the spherical cloud of condensed gas continues to "collapse" in toward its core, the core temperature will rise into the tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. At some point, the temperature and pressure will high enough to permit fusion reactions to take place in the core. The hydrogen and helium nuclei there will be slammed together with such high kinetic energy that two colliding particles will be able to overcome the enormous electrostatic force of repulsion present that would normally prevent two electrically positively charged particles from colliding. Fusion will take place and the product will have slightly less mass than the original reactant particles. The lost mass is converted into gamma radiation which then escapes the newly formed star's core and can heat up the surrounding regions of gaseous material. This sudden increase in core temperature will cause the entire body of the star to swell in diameter as it begins to emit electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum. A star is born...



ken

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Mac, back to the spring line of thought....if Besslers first couple of wheels were OOB from the get go, they had to be tied off to hold them back, would it be safe to assume that if springs were used...then the springs were constantly loaded? Now, that would be an interesting approach....now, how to do that!


Steve

[Thomas]

This topic is very interesting and I'm enjoying everyone's ideas and points of view. So far, I haven't seen anything that would change my opinion on the interchangeability between springs and gravity.

Gravity is a constantly even unidirectional force. Any successful gravity wheel design that employs the use of gravity to make it operate, will have to contend with this same force that cancels out the momentary power gains we've seen in past failed attempts. You can't turn it off.

Springs on the other hand, do not provide a constant and even force. I do not see them as a substitution for gravity.

Just my opinion,

Tom

[bluesgtr44]

Thomas...

Springs on the other hand, do not provide a constant and even force.

In and of themselves, probably not....but, with a little ingenuity? Hmmmm....


Steve

[Fletcher]

Extension & compression springs are examples of linear force, providing they are not over stretched, destroying their elasticity. That means that the stored energy in a spring is proportional to the distance the spring is stretched or compressed within a range of movement.

This is directly analogous to the PE from a suspended mass & the distance it can fall until coming to rest. Halve the distance, you halve the PE, so gravitational force is also linear. Same as a spring IINM.

I think the Potential Energy equation for a spring is slightly different than the one for gravity because it uses a 'k' value from memory. Effectively both PE equations are linear & comparable i.e. apples with apples, therefore completely interchangeable ?!

If a spring powered wheel were put into geosynchronous orbit then gravity from the earth pulling one way would be nullified by gravity from the moon pulling the opposite way. That would leave only any asymmetric torque to drive the wheel coming from some mysterious property of mechanical springs - highly unlikely when you look at it in isolation like this imo.

[Mac]

Hey Steve,

Hey Mac, back to the spring line of thought....if Besslers first couple of wheels were OOB from the get go, they had to be tied off to hold them back, would it be safe to assume that if springs were used...then the springs were constantly loaded? Now, that would be an interesting approach....now, how to do that!

Springs would basically work the same way. ;)

We have to remember that gravity is not some "magic" power. On earth, it simply moves weight downward. Nothing more, nothing less. And that weight must first be lifted upward.

Gravity does have the advantage of pulling weight downward with no linkage attached, but it also has the disadvantage of pulling on every object in your design. On the other hand, springs can be made to pull only on the objects you want.

The cause of Bessler's wheel turning was simply leverage - more on one side of the wheel than the other (the axis being the fulcrum).

Gravity just pulled the "lever", Bessler's design is what created the leverage. All that is needed for springs to work is that same leverage, and the type of mechanism used is pretty much irrelevant. In fact it doesn't necessarily have to even resemble a wheel (and no doubt Bessler's method with gravity would also work on non-wheel designs). ;)

[EDIT] Bear in mind that most believe something besides gravity was also harnessed to make Bessler's wheel turn. Personally I think the secret lies in the kinetic energy from the weights' momentum and/or CF (probably both). And this same "something" would also be needed in a spring design.

Mac

[Gravmaster2000]

Sorry if these were mentioned before...there is a VERY important difference
between gravity and springs-gravity can accelerate weights downward
with no physical connection to the wheel itself, and also no reaction force
to the wheel while doing it (untill it is stopped of course) Raising
the weight/stretching the spring is the same. Hmm....a spring can be turned
and release the force in another direction...
Someone also mentioned spring force increasing as it stretches...true,
but if you have a 10-foot spring, and stretch it 6 inches, the force
does not change much-it is the ratio of stretched/unstretched...
hey, what if you could stretch a spring with 1 ratio, and release it with
another?
Springs have a HUGE advantage when storing energy that I am sure
Bessler used;the lower mass (vs. the weight itself) means less energy is
absorbed/wasted in inertial forces within the spring with a quick hit.
This fast storage of energy can be very useful!
I think you need both :*)

[Mac]

One more thing...

On horizontal axis designs (such as Bessler's), CF is unevenly affected by gravity, which is especially noticeable at slower speeds. And while this might possibly be used to advantage (not sure how?), it's probably more of a hindrance IMO.

However, if springs were used on a vertical axis design, CF would remain constant all around the wheel. And gravity could still be used as a downard force, possibly in concert with CF to enhance or counter it.

Just a thought. ;)

Mac

[LustInBlack]

Mac, what I meant by wear, was that parts will work as intended for a limited time, until they wear out and don't mesh correctly anymore.. Which is about the same as a fuel source, where the source is used up .

I must admit these ideas are far stretched, but we are all in that crackpot free energy stuff together . .

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Mac....

Springs would basically work the same way. ;)

With one acception, we could control the direction of the applied force on the spring...we cannot control the directional force of gravity...yet...

Not only can we control the direction, we can control the amount of stored force. And this amount would have to always be larger than the applied force of gravity within the wheel.

The cause of Bessler's wheel turning was simply leverage - more on one side of the wheel than the other (the axis being the fulcrum).

Oh yes! Lock it in! It can't get out! A constant applied force that is large enough to overcome gravity. Just a little something to think about....


Steve

[graham]

Oh yes! Lock it in! It can't get out! A constant applied force that is large enough to overcome gravity.

Steve, I believe that in order for "work" to be done , that constant applied force has to be applied through a distance.

A rock resting on a table would be a constant applied force , but no work would be done unless you give it a nudge and have it fall to the floor and crack your big toe.

Graham