Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[John Collins]

I was going to post something about my thoughts on this matter but time has beaten me again, and anyway it's probably too long a piece for a posting,so instead I'd like to point anyone interested to a page on my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/why_g ... s_work.HTM. I've written down my thoughts about why I believe Bessler's wheel is possible and doesn't break any rules. Some arguments are old ones I have used before but there are others which seem to me to answer all the questions.

I'm sure I am setting myself up for some serious criticism but in my opinion we should be looking at reasons why Bessler's wheel is possible as well as how. There are, by the way, no numbers in this paper just simple argument, I hope it's simple anyway.

If anyone has any thoughts please post them. I'm away for a few days after Monday so you may not get a response from me immediately.

John Collins

[wikiwheel]

JC

Nice article. It is notable for what was left out.


I have included a graphic which may help get the book out the door. If you don't need it, then maybe your agant will find it useful.

So now "early 2008" up from "late 2007".

Mik


[edited by scott: deleted space wasting attachments. Mik, please control yourself so I don't have to.]

[rlortie]

John,

Nothing to criticize with a negative view, with the exception of your first response! I received one comparable on another thread from the same member.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Hi John .. I'll read it tonight. Should have some objective comments to discuss when you get back. All well thought out arguments are worth exploring, to either find the rational truth in them, or to identify the fallacy. Either way, its an opportunity to move forward.

[DrWhat]

Hi John. Congratulations on your efforts. You certainly know how to tantalize us and persuade us to buy your books especially with your last comment in the snippet. I will certainly be putting my order in once the book is out.

[evgwheel]

Referring to John Collins link (new book)

To compare gravity with wind or fluid is unfair. Both later forces are moving forces, which have the ability to surround any object to give different pressure at different point of the object (moving or not). Gravity on the other hand is a stationary force and will give the same force to a falling object no matter what shape the object is.
Just my opinion and may not be relevant

Now combining airflow and gravity within the same wheel may be the missing link that Bessler used in his working wheel.

[bluesgtr44]

To compare gravity with wind or fluid is unfair. Both later forces are moving forces, which have the ability to surround any object to give different pressure at different point of the object (moving or not).

So, let's see why one would feel the way you do about this.....your five senses can pick these (wind/water) up directly, not so with gravity. Gravity pretty much has to be transferred to another medium for us to sense it. Where John speaks of holding the weight up in your hands, you can feel gravity through the weights pulling downward....Now, it does this all the time...all the time...no matter where you are. Wind and water are not constant in this way....we know how to block them and control them, not gravity...not yet anyway.


Steve

[evgwheel]

Steve

To me gravity pulls only in one way, straight down and at no other angle. Wind and fluids will push or pull in any direction. Think of a sail on a yacht. It will go easily up wind at 30 degrees and 180 degrees down wind etc. A gyroplane is pulled into the wind. Gravity has only one direction and until we can change that a working wheel seems impossible without using any other force.
Where there is air there will be airflow when there is motion. An object affected by airflow can have movement, for instance lateral movement, which could give us a way to set weight further or nearer to the axle centre.
This is only an idea and by no means the answer. Combined forces seem to me to be heading in the right direction.

[rlortie]

gravity verses wind, how to compare

So, let's see why one would feel the way you do about this.....your five senses can pick these (wind/water) up directly, not so with gravity. Gravity pretty much has to be transferred to another medium for us to sense it.

How to sense gravity: Stand in front of your computer desk, raise one foot and rest it on the desk top. Now do the same with the other foot. Believe me you will sense gravity! :-)

Ralph

[John Collins]

evgwheel, I use the wind as an analogy and although it can blow from any direction, my point was that in a situation where it is blowing, for the sake of argument, in just one direction, the local effect is the same as for gravity.

Yes a sail yacht will sail at an angle to the wind just as a weight will fall at an angle to the direction of gravity, on a slide for instance.

Do people agree that if we could answer the three 'problems' I identified we could accept that Bessler's wheel didn't break any physical laws?

Do you think my arguments about those three 'problems' are legitimate?

I see no reason to involve a separate different force to combine with gravity when we know for certain that Bessler used paired weights. Both weights responded to gravity, one to drive the wheel and the other to drive the first weight.

John

[evgwheel]

John Collins
Yes in principal, I believe we all agree, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
I just copied and posted you link/post to my desktop and have a closer look.
Since your post on your website is an introduction only it would have been nice to have also posted it here, instead of the link, I can’t see that anyone would have objected and may have opened a debate in detail.
I do feel that a ramp is quiet different and it only gives distance in sacrifice to weight

[John Collins]

I didn't post it directly because I didn't want to put such a long posting on here. If someone else wants to, its ok with me, but I'm just interested in getting some feedback and that can be done without putting the whole thing here. There may be things that you and others here disagree with, I know that many here believe it's impossible to drive Bessler's wheel from gravity alone. I'd be interested to know if my arguments have in any way persuaded them to the gravity-alone version of Bessler's wheel.

John

[rlortie]

John,

It is pushing midnight here on the west coast, so you are not likely going to get much response from the hard timers here in the U.S.

I have read your link, and I am quite happy and agreeable to it. Must admit though that statements of paired weights and one being vertical to the axis yet causing it to turn is pondering.

Ralph

[Deven]

Interesting read! I especially like the part where you explain how gravity is always applying force, else we all fly into space. Though I would say that the types of energy need to be differentiated. Meaning, if I'm holding myself up on a chinup bar, I'm using alot of chemical energy. However, if I sit on top of it, I'm using none!

Also, I'm not too sure about conclusion 4. I think the point of the closed system idea is that a single weight will always add up to 0. However, you can continue this with every weight, and add them to every other weight, and it should equal zero also. I think this is why most gravity wheels fail. Maybe its possible to trick the wheel or trick gravity out of this, I'm not sure.

The wind and water concepts as conservative forces is interesting. Of course, to make gravity do the same as easily, one would have to remove gravity at certain points, which we can't do yet. But it does further show the point that if these are conservative forces, and we can tap the energy, why not for gravity?

[ovyyus]

Conclusions

1) Gravity wheels are not the same as perpetual motion machines because they are not isolated systems. Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not breached because they use gravity as an external source of energy.

3) Gravity is a conservative force but so is flowing water and the wind and if they can be used to drive machinery then so can gravity.

4) As a conservative force, the path of falling weights is said to be irrelevant however this does not take into account the situation where more than one weight is present, resulting in the potential to create torque. In this circumstance the paths of the weights are critical.

Conclusion 3) is wrong (not sure what happened to 2). Gravity acts more like a spring. Comparing gravity to wind and water flow is too simplistic and does not take into account the total energy cycle. It's like saying a book on a table can be an energy source because it can fall and do work. But that's only half the total energy picture.

A water wheel harnesses the energy used to lift water - the Sun. A windmill harnesses the energy used to create wind - the Sun. Both have a definable non-conservative energy cycle. Gravity does not - it acts like the perfect lossless conservative spring.

I'm aware of no experiment that demonstrates gravity acting as a primary energy source - whatever the semantics.