I've been thinking about how to demonstrate that a wheel could do useful work (other than simply spinning forever). I considered connecting a generator to light some lights, but feel that skeptics would either think you were using the generator as a motor or that hidden batteries might be powering the lights. Pumping water would be too messy and certainly not portable.
How about hooking fan blades to the wheel and blowing some air?
Comments?
Proof of doing work
Moderator: scott
re: Proof of doing work
Hi
inventing perpetual motion (mechanilly) would be just as good as the power part, at least you are there 85%. the rest would be tweaking. Also if it runs forever, it is power, you are overcoming friction et.
evg
inventing perpetual motion (mechanilly) would be just as good as the power part, at least you are there 85%. the rest would be tweaking. Also if it runs forever, it is power, you are overcoming friction et.
evg
re: Proof of doing work
Gadge,
I would be happy with a working wheel even if it wasn't capable of producing useful work. If a working concept is found, it can always be improved upon.
Although, I would love to see a gravity wheel turning a generator with say a light bulb burning. This alone would disprove the conservation of energy law.
It would be living proof that positive heat exchange is achievable.
What a dream!!
Kas
I would be happy with a working wheel even if it wasn't capable of producing useful work. If a working concept is found, it can always be improved upon.
Although, I would love to see a gravity wheel turning a generator with say a light bulb burning. This alone would disprove the conservation of energy law.
It would be living proof that positive heat exchange is achievable.
What a dream!!
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
re: Proof of doing work
Are we really trying to disprove current laws or just work with and around them (loopholes)?
Heat exchange as in a sterling engine?
evg
Heat exchange as in a sterling engine?
evg
re: Proof of doing work
Hi evgwheel,
By heat exchange, I mean as depicted in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In thermal physics, heat transfer is the passage of thermal energy from a hot to a cold body. When a physical body, e.g. an object or fluid, is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another body, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat transfer, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium. Heat transfer always occurs from a hot body to a cold one, a result of the second law of thermodynamics. Heat transfer can never be stopped; it can only be slowed down.
A burning element of a lit light bulb would share the heat being generated by the turning action of a wheel.
Now that would be something!
Kas
By heat exchange, I mean as depicted in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In thermal physics, heat transfer is the passage of thermal energy from a hot to a cold body. When a physical body, e.g. an object or fluid, is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another body, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat transfer, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium. Heat transfer always occurs from a hot body to a cold one, a result of the second law of thermodynamics. Heat transfer can never be stopped; it can only be slowed down.
A burning element of a lit light bulb would share the heat being generated by the turning action of a wheel.
Now that would be something!
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
A working wheel would be tapping into an energy source that is not "thermo" dynamic until it is converted into motion. The word "engine" is used for devices that convert heat into mechanical movement. The word "motor" is used for devices that convert other forms of energy like electricity or air pressure into motion. A gravity wheel would be a motor type device that uses gravity and the motion of weights to amplify the motion using the background ether energy field (the cause of momentum) as an energy source. You might call the wheel an "ether energy motor" or a "motion motor."
A simple all mechanical way to prove a wheel is working is to use a Prony Brake. The Prony Brake will show how much torque the wheel is producing. A stopwatch and a painted spot on the wheel will tell you the wheel's speed. From that you can calculated exactly how much work the wheel is doing. Alternately let someone connect their own small dynomometer to the wheel; if all the insides are open to inspection then there would be no question as to if the wheel produces work.
Any wheel that can overcome frinction and keep turning IS producing work!
Edited: spelling (is to if) error.
A simple all mechanical way to prove a wheel is working is to use a Prony Brake. The Prony Brake will show how much torque the wheel is producing. A stopwatch and a painted spot on the wheel will tell you the wheel's speed. From that you can calculated exactly how much work the wheel is doing. Alternately let someone connect their own small dynomometer to the wheel; if all the insides are open to inspection then there would be no question as to if the wheel produces work.
Any wheel that can overcome frinction and keep turning IS producing work!
Edited: spelling (is to if) error.
Last edited by jim_mich on Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Proof of doing work
I totally agree with Jim!
Many times I have received designs with the statement: "I think I may have a working design, but it will not produce much work"
I explain that it does not matter whether it produces external work as long as it runs.
A self sustaining wheel running on gravity and not using any other outside source such as wind or solar would be like re-inventing the wheel and certainly change a number of Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion and gravity.
Newton's Three Laws of Motion:
Newton's first law of motion states that if the vector sum of the forces acting on an object is zero, then the object will remain at rest or remain moving at constant velocity. If the force exerted on an object is zero, the object does not necessarily have zero velocity. Without any forces acting on it, including friction, an object in motion will continue to travel at constant velocity.
The Second Law
Newton's second law relates net force and acceleration. A net force on an object will accelerate it-that is, change its velocity. The acceleration will be proportional to the magnitude of the force and in the same direction as the force. The proportionality constant is the mass, m, of the object.
F = ma
In the International System of Units (also known as SI, after the initials of Système International), acceleration, a, is measured in meters per second per second. Mass is measured in kilograms; force, F, in newtons. A newton is defined as the force necessary to impart to a mass of 1 kg an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec; this is equivalent to about 0.2248 lb.
A massive object will require a greater force for a given acceleration than a small, light object. What is remarkable is that mass, which is a measure of the inertia of an object (inertia is its reluctance to change velocity), is also a measure of the gravitational attraction that the object exerts on other objects. It is surprising and profound that the inertial property and the gravitational property are determined by the same thing. The implication of this phenomenon is that it is impossible to distinguish at a point whether the point is in a gravitational field or in an accelerated frame of reference. Einstein made this one of the cornerstones of his general theory of relativity, which is the currently accepted theory of gravitation.
Friction
Friction acts like a force applied in the direction opposite to an object's velocity. For dry sliding friction, where no lubrication is present, the friction force is almost independent of velocity. Also, the friction force does not depend on the apparent area of contact between an object and the surface upon which it slides. The actual contact area-that is, the area where the microscopic bumps on the object and sliding surface are actually touching each other-is relatively small. As the object moves across the sliding surface, the tiny bumps on the object and sliding surface collide, and force is required to move the bumps past each other. The actual contact area depends on the perpendicular force between the object and sliding surface. Frequently this force is just the weight of the sliding object. If the object is pushed at an angle to the horizontal, however, the downward vertical component of the force will, in effect, add to the weight of the object. The friction force is proportional to the total perpendicular force.
Where friction is present, Newton's second law is expanded to
The left side of the equation is simply the net effective force. (Acceleration will be constant in the direction of the effective force). When an object moves through a liquid, however, the magnitude of the friction depends on the velocity. For most human-size objects moving in water or air (at subsonic speeds), the resulting friction is proportional to the square of the speed. Newton's second law then becomes
The proportionality constant, k, is characteristic of the two materials that are sliding past each other, and depends on the area of contact between the two surfaces and the degree of streamlining of the moving object.
The Third Law:
Newton's third law of motion states that an object experiences a force because it is interacting with some other object. The force that object 1 exerts on object 2 must be of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction as the force that object 2 exerts on object 1. If, for example, a large adult gently shoves away a child on a skating rink, in addition to the force the adult imparts on the child, the child imparts an equal but oppositely directed force on the adult. Because the mass of the adult is larger, however, the acceleration of the adult will be smaller.
Newton's third law also requires the conservation of momentum, or the product of mass and velocity. For an isolated system, with no external forces acting on it, the momentum must remain constant. In the example of the adult and child on the skating rink, their initial velocities are zero, and thus the initial momentum of the system is zero. During the interaction, internal forces are at work between adult and child, but net external forces equal zero. Therefore, the momentum of the system must remain zero. After the adult pushes the child away, the product of the large mass and small velocity of the adult must equal the product of the small mass and large velocity of the child. The momenta are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, thus adding to zero.
Another conserved quantity of great importance is angular (rotational) momentum. The angular momentum of a rotating object depends on its speed of rotation, its mass, and the distance of the mass from the axis. When a skater standing on a friction-free point spins faster and faster, angular momentum is conserved despite the increasing speed. At the start of the spin, the skater's arms are outstretched. Part of the mass is therefore at a large radius. As the skater's arms are lowered, thus decreasing their distance from the axis of rotation, the rotational speed must increase in order to maintain constant angular momentum.
Energy
The quantity called energy ties together all branches of physics. In the field of mechanics, energy must be provided to do work; work is defined as the product of force and the distance an object moves in the direction of the force. When a force is exerted on an object but the force does not cause the object to move, no work is done. Energy and work are both measured in the same units-ergs, joules, or foot-pounds, for example.
If work is done lifting an object to a greater height, energy has been stored in the form of gravitational potential energy. Many other forms of energy exist: electric and magnetic potential energy; kinetic energy; energy stored in stretched springs, compressed gases, or molecular bonds; thermal energy; and mass itself. In all transformations from one kind of energy to another, the total energy is conserved. For instance, if work is done on a rubber ball to raise it, its gravitational potential energy is increased. If the ball is then dropped, the gravitational potential energy is transformed to kinetic energy. When the ball hits the ground, it becomes distorted and thereby creates friction between the molecules of the ball material. This friction is transformed into heat, or thermal energy.
Ralph
Many times I have received designs with the statement: "I think I may have a working design, but it will not produce much work"
I explain that it does not matter whether it produces external work as long as it runs.
A self sustaining wheel running on gravity and not using any other outside source such as wind or solar would be like re-inventing the wheel and certainly change a number of Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion and gravity.
Newton's Three Laws of Motion:
Newton's first law of motion states that if the vector sum of the forces acting on an object is zero, then the object will remain at rest or remain moving at constant velocity. If the force exerted on an object is zero, the object does not necessarily have zero velocity. Without any forces acting on it, including friction, an object in motion will continue to travel at constant velocity.
The Second Law
Newton's second law relates net force and acceleration. A net force on an object will accelerate it-that is, change its velocity. The acceleration will be proportional to the magnitude of the force and in the same direction as the force. The proportionality constant is the mass, m, of the object.
F = ma
In the International System of Units (also known as SI, after the initials of Système International), acceleration, a, is measured in meters per second per second. Mass is measured in kilograms; force, F, in newtons. A newton is defined as the force necessary to impart to a mass of 1 kg an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec; this is equivalent to about 0.2248 lb.
A massive object will require a greater force for a given acceleration than a small, light object. What is remarkable is that mass, which is a measure of the inertia of an object (inertia is its reluctance to change velocity), is also a measure of the gravitational attraction that the object exerts on other objects. It is surprising and profound that the inertial property and the gravitational property are determined by the same thing. The implication of this phenomenon is that it is impossible to distinguish at a point whether the point is in a gravitational field or in an accelerated frame of reference. Einstein made this one of the cornerstones of his general theory of relativity, which is the currently accepted theory of gravitation.
Friction
Friction acts like a force applied in the direction opposite to an object's velocity. For dry sliding friction, where no lubrication is present, the friction force is almost independent of velocity. Also, the friction force does not depend on the apparent area of contact between an object and the surface upon which it slides. The actual contact area-that is, the area where the microscopic bumps on the object and sliding surface are actually touching each other-is relatively small. As the object moves across the sliding surface, the tiny bumps on the object and sliding surface collide, and force is required to move the bumps past each other. The actual contact area depends on the perpendicular force between the object and sliding surface. Frequently this force is just the weight of the sliding object. If the object is pushed at an angle to the horizontal, however, the downward vertical component of the force will, in effect, add to the weight of the object. The friction force is proportional to the total perpendicular force.
Where friction is present, Newton's second law is expanded to
The left side of the equation is simply the net effective force. (Acceleration will be constant in the direction of the effective force). When an object moves through a liquid, however, the magnitude of the friction depends on the velocity. For most human-size objects moving in water or air (at subsonic speeds), the resulting friction is proportional to the square of the speed. Newton's second law then becomes
The proportionality constant, k, is characteristic of the two materials that are sliding past each other, and depends on the area of contact between the two surfaces and the degree of streamlining of the moving object.
The Third Law:
Newton's third law of motion states that an object experiences a force because it is interacting with some other object. The force that object 1 exerts on object 2 must be of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction as the force that object 2 exerts on object 1. If, for example, a large adult gently shoves away a child on a skating rink, in addition to the force the adult imparts on the child, the child imparts an equal but oppositely directed force on the adult. Because the mass of the adult is larger, however, the acceleration of the adult will be smaller.
Newton's third law also requires the conservation of momentum, or the product of mass and velocity. For an isolated system, with no external forces acting on it, the momentum must remain constant. In the example of the adult and child on the skating rink, their initial velocities are zero, and thus the initial momentum of the system is zero. During the interaction, internal forces are at work between adult and child, but net external forces equal zero. Therefore, the momentum of the system must remain zero. After the adult pushes the child away, the product of the large mass and small velocity of the adult must equal the product of the small mass and large velocity of the child. The momenta are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, thus adding to zero.
Another conserved quantity of great importance is angular (rotational) momentum. The angular momentum of a rotating object depends on its speed of rotation, its mass, and the distance of the mass from the axis. When a skater standing on a friction-free point spins faster and faster, angular momentum is conserved despite the increasing speed. At the start of the spin, the skater's arms are outstretched. Part of the mass is therefore at a large radius. As the skater's arms are lowered, thus decreasing their distance from the axis of rotation, the rotational speed must increase in order to maintain constant angular momentum.
Energy
The quantity called energy ties together all branches of physics. In the field of mechanics, energy must be provided to do work; work is defined as the product of force and the distance an object moves in the direction of the force. When a force is exerted on an object but the force does not cause the object to move, no work is done. Energy and work are both measured in the same units-ergs, joules, or foot-pounds, for example.
If work is done lifting an object to a greater height, energy has been stored in the form of gravitational potential energy. Many other forms of energy exist: electric and magnetic potential energy; kinetic energy; energy stored in stretched springs, compressed gases, or molecular bonds; thermal energy; and mass itself. In all transformations from one kind of energy to another, the total energy is conserved. For instance, if work is done on a rubber ball to raise it, its gravitational potential energy is increased. If the ball is then dropped, the gravitational potential energy is transformed to kinetic energy. When the ball hits the ground, it becomes distorted and thereby creates friction between the molecules of the ball material. This friction is transformed into heat, or thermal energy.
A self-sustaining novelty sized machine would subsantiate that the three above laws were flawed. It could bring the inventor millions not to speak of possibly a Nobel prize in Physics!"Mechanics," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Ralph
Great summation Ralph!Ralph wrote:A self-sustaining novelty sized machine would substantiate that the three above laws were flawed. It could bring the inventor millions not to speak of possibly a Nobel prize in Physics!
I have an idea, just like a question:
What if we have a self sustaining machine while all laws are apply, and no one flawed?
I for one do not exclude this possibility! Moreover, I have the impression that this is the case.
The fact that we have a system of laws does not mean that we can see all things about them, and see through all the possibilities and combinations can be done with those laws. Scientists of today usually ignore this fact. They think they see (and see through) everything, but obviously they are not Gods, as no other man are.
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: Proof of doing work
I agree with Gregory that no laws will be found to be flawed. I am in the process of writing a paper which seeks to explain why gravity wheels don't violate the laws of mainstream physics. I am sure that many will disagree with my 'proof' but I hope that it sows some seeds and perhaps provokes some discussion. I need a few more days to finalise it but hopefully I shall post it here.
I'm doing this as I once tried to do before in order to stimulate some thoughts about how we can explain this dilemma. I say dilemma because we seemingly have a paradox; Bessler has proved to us here that his machine was genuine and yet mainstream physics proves that such machines are impossible.
Either Bessler has fooled us - and I don't for a moment now believe that - or mainstream physics is wrong. By 'wrong' I don't mean that the laws are wrong - just our interpretation of them in some areas. I hope to develope this theme in my paper very soon.
John Collins
I'm doing this as I once tried to do before in order to stimulate some thoughts about how we can explain this dilemma. I say dilemma because we seemingly have a paradox; Bessler has proved to us here that his machine was genuine and yet mainstream physics proves that such machines are impossible.
Either Bessler has fooled us - and I don't for a moment now believe that - or mainstream physics is wrong. By 'wrong' I don't mean that the laws are wrong - just our interpretation of them in some areas. I hope to develope this theme in my paper very soon.
John Collins
re: Proof of doing work
Gregory,
Theory of Everything
An important trend in modern theoretical physics is to find a theory of everything (TOE), in which all four of the fundamental forces are seen to be really different aspects of the same single universal force. Physicists already have unified electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and have made progress in joining these two forces with the strong nuclear force (see Grand Unification Theories). However, relativistic gravitation, with its geometric and mathematically complex character, poses the most difficult challenge. Einstein spent most of his later years searching for an all-encompassing theory by trying to make electromagnetism geometrical like gravitation. The modern approach is to try to make gravitation fit the pattern of the other fundamental forces. Much of this work involves looking for mathematical patterns. A TOE is difficult to test using experiments because the effects of a TOE would be important only in the rarest circumstance
A good point, but IMO we would have to take a strong look at some other laws or do a new overview of "Theory of Everything" simply because it is currently the theory or law that a gravity machine is impossible! Something is going to have to give!What if we have a self sustaining machine while all laws are apply, and no one flawed?
Theory of Everything
An important trend in modern theoretical physics is to find a theory of everything (TOE), in which all four of the fundamental forces are seen to be really different aspects of the same single universal force. Physicists already have unified electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and have made progress in joining these two forces with the strong nuclear force (see Grand Unification Theories). However, relativistic gravitation, with its geometric and mathematically complex character, poses the most difficult challenge. Einstein spent most of his later years searching for an all-encompassing theory by trying to make electromagnetism geometrical like gravitation. The modern approach is to try to make gravitation fit the pattern of the other fundamental forces. Much of this work involves looking for mathematical patterns. A TOE is difficult to test using experiments because the effects of a TOE would be important only in the rarest circumstance
"Gravitation," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Man does not have a firm grasp on physics at this point. Every known theory has its flaws and exceptions. That is why I do not accept when a scientist says something is impossible. It might be impossible in every instance they've ever seen. It might be impossible by what they know of physics. But it does not leave it impossible.
I also believe, however, that the laws of thermodynamics will hold, the invention of a PMM will simply coincide with the discovery of a new source of energy, which will probably be the dark matter of the universe. I don't believe that gravity will be a necessity to tap this energy, though it very well might.
I also believe, however, that the laws of thermodynamics will hold, the invention of a PMM will simply coincide with the discovery of a new source of energy, which will probably be the dark matter of the universe. I don't believe that gravity will be a necessity to tap this energy, though it very well might.
re: Proof of doing work
I have read a good book which included lots of things about the subject, like gravitation, inertia, newton's laws, Einstein's relativity, quantum physics, some astrology, frames of reference, TOE, etc.
I am sure, Scientist will finally succeed in unify all four fundamental forces to fit in one unified theory. I just afraid about how much mistakes they will make to reach to the goal.
Let me explain my thoughts on this...
Working with these things involves much more complex maths than a mere mortal can understand. Today, we already have a lot of strange equations & things in maths which nobody understand for sure what it symbolize in the real world. Mathematics can be very abstract, can visualize "impossible" or strange things in the form of numbers, equations, etc. Obviously we need to know what is what, to apply it for reality.
For example, Scientist do not like singularities and infinity symbols in some equations. Although these appears to be there by default, sometimes scientists try to write them out to reach their predetermined imagination. But why?
There are cases when scientists working on something and get a result, which they couldn't predicted, they find the result unexpected. So, they see that something is strange with the equation, looks like it does not fit with reality, however it should fit! The two sides of the equation does not want to be the same, although they have to be. What's going on!?
And what they do?
In cases they add the missing number to one side, to save the equation... and their theory.
This happened for example with dark matter, and dark energy... They found that there is not enough mass in the universe to fit their theories, so they said: It have to be the dark matter buddy!
For me it's foul. It's not scientific. Maybe the problem is with me, and I am really wrong! I would be happy with that, so please correct me if I am wrong.
So, all is what I tried to say, is at what cost we want those unified theories? How much dark matter stuff, or other strange things we need to add in order to reach the goal?
I think we don't necessary need this final unified theory which contain "everything".
I know I am in a contradiction with my previous post in a sense. I defended Newton's laws just before, and now I say I don't trust in some new theories. And yes, this is the case.
I have seen more scientist explained stupid things in TV, in media, in newspaper. I fear those guys. They spend millions of $ in the name of science, and some times it looks like for me, they have no idea what they are talking about. Hopefully, these are just rare cases with a few crazy scientist, but I found that I can't trust in some new theories, while I respect the work what Newton, Einstein, and others did in the past.
I am afraid that a few regions of science going in the direction to finally become a kind of faith or religion, which I wouldn't like, however I have no big problems with different religions of mankind.
It looks like sometimes scientist want to rather create non-existent laws, than realize the reality behind the problem. I don't say that all these things are easy, I just have this bad impression.
I am sure, Scientist will finally succeed in unify all four fundamental forces to fit in one unified theory. I just afraid about how much mistakes they will make to reach to the goal.
Let me explain my thoughts on this...
Working with these things involves much more complex maths than a mere mortal can understand. Today, we already have a lot of strange equations & things in maths which nobody understand for sure what it symbolize in the real world. Mathematics can be very abstract, can visualize "impossible" or strange things in the form of numbers, equations, etc. Obviously we need to know what is what, to apply it for reality.
For example, Scientist do not like singularities and infinity symbols in some equations. Although these appears to be there by default, sometimes scientists try to write them out to reach their predetermined imagination. But why?
There are cases when scientists working on something and get a result, which they couldn't predicted, they find the result unexpected. So, they see that something is strange with the equation, looks like it does not fit with reality, however it should fit! The two sides of the equation does not want to be the same, although they have to be. What's going on!?
And what they do?
In cases they add the missing number to one side, to save the equation... and their theory.
This happened for example with dark matter, and dark energy... They found that there is not enough mass in the universe to fit their theories, so they said: It have to be the dark matter buddy!
For me it's foul. It's not scientific. Maybe the problem is with me, and I am really wrong! I would be happy with that, so please correct me if I am wrong.
So, all is what I tried to say, is at what cost we want those unified theories? How much dark matter stuff, or other strange things we need to add in order to reach the goal?
I think we don't necessary need this final unified theory which contain "everything".
I know I am in a contradiction with my previous post in a sense. I defended Newton's laws just before, and now I say I don't trust in some new theories. And yes, this is the case.
I have seen more scientist explained stupid things in TV, in media, in newspaper. I fear those guys. They spend millions of $ in the name of science, and some times it looks like for me, they have no idea what they are talking about. Hopefully, these are just rare cases with a few crazy scientist, but I found that I can't trust in some new theories, while I respect the work what Newton, Einstein, and others did in the past.
I am afraid that a few regions of science going in the direction to finally become a kind of faith or religion, which I wouldn't like, however I have no big problems with different religions of mankind.
It looks like sometimes scientist want to rather create non-existent laws, than realize the reality behind the problem. I don't say that all these things are easy, I just have this bad impression.
re: Proof of doing work
''Nothing will be taken from nothing'', a true refrain of the stupid and so sure skepticals.
For the other side, gravity is something... something that acts right here, now, free and always. Gravity may be managed, transformed, reserved, absorbed, resisted, used and so on.
The limitation is the human mind, its architectural and geometric skills and that stuff named ''not yet mutatis mutandi''.
regs. M.
For the other side, gravity is something... something that acts right here, now, free and always. Gravity may be managed, transformed, reserved, absorbed, resisted, used and so on.
The limitation is the human mind, its architectural and geometric skills and that stuff named ''not yet mutatis mutandi''.
regs. M.
Last edited by murilo on Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But forget my monologue, and back to the subject. ;)
But... These laws does not say word by word that a gravity machine is impossible. Of course they can add to it: "and because of this and that a gravity machine is impossible" However that part is not a true elemental part of the actual law. It is just a conclusion; and as a conclusion it can be right or wrong. We cannot prove or disprove it for totally sure. The laws themselves don't talk about the impossibility. Only people talk about it.
This is why I think the solution may be exist inside the coherence of the present laws, we just can't see or find it.
This version would also worths a nobel prize or something!
Just think about... Beating the physicists in their own field would be an even greater bolt in the heart, than to discover a new theory or complete an older one. It would be quite a painful thing for much people to accept, because those are the exact same laws which would make the machine work.
I assume, this would be the first law of thermodynamics. And conservation of energy...it is currently the theory or law that a gravity machine is impossible!
But... These laws does not say word by word that a gravity machine is impossible. Of course they can add to it: "and because of this and that a gravity machine is impossible" However that part is not a true elemental part of the actual law. It is just a conclusion; and as a conclusion it can be right or wrong. We cannot prove or disprove it for totally sure. The laws themselves don't talk about the impossibility. Only people talk about it.
This is why I think the solution may be exist inside the coherence of the present laws, we just can't see or find it.
This version would also worths a nobel prize or something!
Just think about... Beating the physicists in their own field would be an even greater bolt in the heart, than to discover a new theory or complete an older one. It would be quite a painful thing for much people to accept, because those are the exact same laws which would make the machine work.
re: Proof of doing work
Johnny come lately here .. call me old fashioned
I would probably attach a series of equally spaced magnets around the rim of the wheel. Once the wheel was self sustaining I would progressively move a coil of some sort closer to the magnets as they passed by, creating an incremental variable load on the wheel. Attached to that would be a ammeter to register & measure an induced current. I would probably also use an electronic oscilloscope to accurately measure the rpm as it falls under load & then stabilizes. This way I could accurately gauge the stall point of the wheel i.e. at what rpm it can no longer self sustain its constant rotation. That should suffice as relevant proof that the wheel can do more work than overcome 'normal losses'. It also shows that no additional structures were ' directly attached' to the wheel, which could invite criticism. It is after all a proof of concept demonstration. Obviously it's performance could probably be engineered out of sight thereafter by a R & D team of some sort.
I favour the "Ockams Razor' approach to solving this mystery of the Prime Mover. That the answer will be found & contained in already well known & documented laws vis-a-vis a combination of newtonian mechanics & environmental forces available to the wheel. No new, hitherto undiscovered exotic fix [to uses Bill's term] but ordinary physics & forces implemented in an exotic way [Scott's term]. I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics & conservation of energy & momentum will continue to hold true, unbreeched.
I look forward to reading your paper John, to see if I can get to grips with it. I'm sure it will open up a lively discussion & avenues of new thought for some of us old die-hards *grin*. One thing for sure, it will strain the brain as we try to grasp a new paradigm that allows for the temporary disruption of gravity symmetry & conservation.
I would probably attach a series of equally spaced magnets around the rim of the wheel. Once the wheel was self sustaining I would progressively move a coil of some sort closer to the magnets as they passed by, creating an incremental variable load on the wheel. Attached to that would be a ammeter to register & measure an induced current. I would probably also use an electronic oscilloscope to accurately measure the rpm as it falls under load & then stabilizes. This way I could accurately gauge the stall point of the wheel i.e. at what rpm it can no longer self sustain its constant rotation. That should suffice as relevant proof that the wheel can do more work than overcome 'normal losses'. It also shows that no additional structures were ' directly attached' to the wheel, which could invite criticism. It is after all a proof of concept demonstration. Obviously it's performance could probably be engineered out of sight thereafter by a R & D team of some sort.
I favour the "Ockams Razor' approach to solving this mystery of the Prime Mover. That the answer will be found & contained in already well known & documented laws vis-a-vis a combination of newtonian mechanics & environmental forces available to the wheel. No new, hitherto undiscovered exotic fix [to uses Bill's term] but ordinary physics & forces implemented in an exotic way [Scott's term]. I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics & conservation of energy & momentum will continue to hold true, unbreeched.
I look forward to reading your paper John, to see if I can get to grips with it. I'm sure it will open up a lively discussion & avenues of new thought for some of us old die-hards *grin*. One thing for sure, it will strain the brain as we try to grasp a new paradigm that allows for the temporary disruption of gravity symmetry & conservation.