Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

hmmm ... 50 rpm ? could it be the radius the weights are resting at being small & the masses being located close to the axle & the small circumference distance they would have to travel ? - like imagining MT15 with a second external rim around the overbalance weights, to give some sort of proportions ?

This is what I am now being attacked for once again. Reminds me of Snoopy the dog sitting on the dog house waiting to pounce.

Can you look at this in real life without running for your machinist hand book?

26 RPM or 50 RPM, what do you want and how do you achieve it. You have weights swinging outward due to CF. you wish to limit the swing travel from the axis or pivot point. You can change swing radius (not size of wheel) making the radius shorter for faster or longer for slower. You can change amount of weight more for shorter or less for longer. I am not a math person but even I can see it is a simple "Pie" formula CF is force, velocity is rate of RPM x radius is resistance to change.

How do you manually change the speed of an object controlled by a Fly Ball governor, you change the resistance. Simply tighten or loosen a compression spring.

Ralph

[rmd3]

Ralph, below are the standard definitions of Force, Energy and Work:

Newton stated that change of motion is caused by forces. In other words force is “something� which can change the state of motion. By state of motion we understand parameters defining the motion, that is, direction, velocity, acceleration.

Work can be generally defined as transfer of energy.

Energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work.

Are these definitions unclear?

Yes, they are unclear.... the capacity for doing a transfer of capacity for doing a transfer... ad nauseum.

If we stick with just dealing with forces as opposed to concepts of energy, I think the math would be agreed upon more readily.

[ovyyus]

When a moving billiard ball hits a stationary billiard ball, the moving billiard ball transfers some its energy to (does work on) the stationary billiard ball.

A moving billiard ball, unlike a stationary billiard ball, has energy, or the capacity for doing work.

I don't see the problem.

[Fletcher]

Ralph .. I just booted my boy & his mate off the computer - I am off to have a few beers now - will look into your scenario tomorrow if someone else hasn't answered it already.

cheers - hiccup %)

[rmd3]

The stationary billiard ball blocks a moving billiard ball, the stationary billard ball transfers some of its energy to the moving billiard ball (it does work to slow/stop/alter the moving balls course). A stationary billiard ball, unlike a moving billiard ball, has energy, or the capacity for doing work.

(Moving objects are just so unstable... why should they be the reference points?)

Consider using force in the example...

When moving billiard ball hists a stationary billiard ball, the moving billiard ball transfers some of its force(direction/velocity/accel per the definition of force given) to the stationary billiard ball. A moving billiard ball, unlike a stationary billiard ball, has a capacity for transfering force (per the same definition).

I can't write that the other way around like I could for the "energy" definiton. Could I? It would read very awkwardly. How can a stationary ball impart force????

A stationary billiard ball has no forces associated with it (we're ignoring gravity and just examing the 2D interactions, right?). A moving billiard ball can be either uniform velocity, accelerating, and we can describe it's path relative to the stationary ball. No one would attribute the stationary billiard ball a velocity, let along an acceleration or path of travel. Yet, people do attribute energy (potential, anyway) to stationary objects.

I understand the conventional concepts... I just think they aren't great tools for clarity, and so something gets lost/confused along the way.

[Bessler007]

hello rmd3,

The point of the thread is to answer the objections physicists have for their understanding of why a gravity wheel is only possible in the minds of a crank. :)

One objection is the only work you are going to get from dropping a mass is precisely what you'll need to put it back where it came from if there weren't any losses. Another objection is there will be losses. So to restore the mass to it's original position you're going to need to create energy. That's impossible.

Going back to the first objection, they don't really care how you want to drop that mass or restore it to where it came from. They've done the math for every imaginable course you could take. It's all the same. That's why physicists contend gravity is a conservative force.

When there's a difference between two forces a mass will move and that's described as energy. You can't create more energy between two potential levels of energy than is actually there regardless of how you want to move between those two levels.

That's what the eggheads say. The cranks say differently. So far the eggheads are right.

Looking at energy or work and the rate of doing that work is unavoidable when trying to explain how a gravity wheel might be possible.

[John Collins]

Bessler007 wrote

My question is:

Is the idea that gravity is an energy source (as per the quote from your site) an original one? I think I've heard it before.

I've no idea if it's an original idea, it just seems obvious to me that it must be true if Bessler's wheel is driven by gravity.

Bill you wrote,

Surely if someone is going to consider gravity as an energy source then they will also consider a spring in the same manner, which sounds absurd to me.

Not the same thing Bill. Let me try to put it another way. I think of gravity as a constant 'stream' of energy carrying everything with it that isn't fixed or tied down. Unlike a spring which having been compressed has a one-time expansion potential, the 'stream' of gravity is continuous and doesn't need to be recompressed because it is continuous.

The motion caused by gravity doesn't stop once it has moved the object. There is always the pressure to move it again and do work. A spring decompresses once and it has done its job.

You mentioned billiard balls further on and I would point out the differences like this. Normally a billiard ball is hit and as you say, transfers its energy to the ball it hits. This is like the spring in that it is a one time piece of energy. Gravity acts like a billiard cue that instead of hitting the ball, pushes it continuously across the billiard table until it strikes the other side.

But you must remember that unlike a billiard cue that might weave from side to side in such an action, causing the ball to weave, this 'gravity' cue never deviates from a straight line, so it is more like a wall of force than a pointed cue. You could imagine using the billiard cue sideways and carrying every ball on the table with it.

I keep using analogies because it is the best way to understand it. I'm not saying gravity is exactly the same as a stream, but it is an easier way to understand why it can provide energy to Bessler's wheel.

It isn't directly turning the wheel, but it does cause the weights to fall which in their turn cause the OOB situation. And a pair of weights in the right configuration will work because one unit of the pair causes the other to move into an OOB position. So gravity moves each part of each pair in a different way.

John

[rmd3]

Hello Bessler007,

I follow what you are saying. I think our intuitive understanding of what energy is is not the description given in conventional physics. So I think dealing with forces clarifies things.

I have a mass resting on a carton of eggs. I raise it to say 100 ft. and drop it. Intuitively, did it return to the top of the carton of eggs recouping all the "energy" I put into it, and my eggs are safe? Please explain why they broke and where that extra "energy" came from? (perhaps someones answer to this will make me change my mind)

As for examining wheels, torque is wonderful rxF - but don't mistake this for the conventional energy definition - it's a relationship of force with respect to a pivot point. Torque is a directional quantity where as energy is not.

[rlortie]

To all who responded Thank you.

Yes some of it is still unclear! so lets start with this:

Force has the potential to move a mass. If the force does move the mass, that mass in motion can be described in terms of kinetic energy (1/2m * v^2). While the mass is resting having a force attract it (or pushing on it) there only exists the potential for energy. That potential could only be defined in terms of how far it would move and how fast (as I see it) if the force were permitted to move it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Gasoline, water behind a dam, holding a bowling ball over an ingrown toe nail, is called either potential force or just force.

If I burn the gasoline in an engine,release the water, drop the ball, It is now deemed energy or kinetic energy.

If I drop the ball a force called gravity (having potential converts it into kinetic energy hence returning to a force when it lands on my toe. Inertia had to be overcome to start the fall and then arrested/canceled as it lands on my foot

Back to the gasoline internal combustion for a moment. The gasoline/air mixture is flashed above its kindling point and explodes. it can push the piston down, so by these standards it is not energy but force. It is not kinetic energy until the piston is in travel and even then it is not either as it is now the piston that carries the kinetic energy.The expanding gases above it are now force.

A pendulum started from a horizontal position will start downward by a force called gravity, as it falls it gains kinetic energy and inertia, resisting any decrease in motion. Gravity although pushing on it constantly creating an increase in kinetic energy via velocity(squared) is still deemed a force and not energy.

We call gravity a conservative force, yet when it causes a mass to fall (which it never seems to have a problem doing) it becomes potential force which creates energy in the falling object. How can it be conservative and obviously potential at the same time???

Now, right or wrong, and please correct me if I am wrong. How does this play on words help us solve the dilemma of pursuing the re-discovery of Bessler's secret or proving a gravity wheel is possible.

One more thing, do the weights gain force from swinging or energy? If I go by the above definitions they gain energy. They lose it at their apex. At this point a conservative force some how becomes a potential force creating more energy! If they loose it and then retrieve it, is this gaining?

No offense meant I appreciate the input, but those of you who remember Jonathan (one very smart boy) had better luck with his plastic version of Tinker Toys. I cannot recall the name, K-nect or something like that.

It is my opinion: Rather than waste time debating all this, get away from the computer and head for the workshop. If you do not have the resources then ask for help. Sure it means sharing your plan, but agreements can be made. With this lesson I now believe I will very likely become a "lurker" except for post aimed at me, and spend more time making shavings.

If you think Centrifugal is the way to go then disconnect the centripetal and let the weights fly, remember though you need a potential force to do so. It does not look like it will be gravity being conservative, you must first get them up from their keel point and in motion. You have to lift a magnet before you can defy gravity even with another conservative force. Seems like doing it with a non-magnetized static mass will even be more fun.

And to Jim I say: my machinist book is in the book case, I very rarely ever take it down. If I need to know something all I have to do is make a statement referring to it on this forum.

Thank you for your patience and indulgence.

Ralph

[Deven]

CF acts upon an object at any rotational speed. Jim is right about this, however, the rotational speed of the object wouldn't really matter, depending on what you are using as your centripetal force. Place a spring on the weights, and it will take more force to push them towards the outside.

As for the energy question. I like to think of force as energy transferred. Energy, on the other hand, I like to think of as mass in motion relative to a frame of reference (usually the earth).

One thing I was wondering, was that someone said that gravity is limited to the speed of light. If this is so, how could a black hole exist? Wouldn't the gravitational pull need to be more than the speed of light in order to trap it?

[rlortie]

John,

I see that while I spent some time composing my above post, you were carrying the ball. Thank you!

I want to make it clear that I agree with you, gravity is the answer to duplicating a device such as Bessler's. If what I have learned here tonight is correct then gravity is no more conservative than gasoline which must be lifted into the tank and then lifted by pump to the engine.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Deven,

CF acts upon an object at any rotational speed. Jim is right about this, however, the rotational speed of the object wouldn't really matter, depending on what you are using as your centripetal force. Place a spring on the weights, and it will take more force to push them towards the outside.

You word this as though to imply that Jim is right and I or some one is wrong. It is these kind of statements that stir me up. Especially when the post that brought it up was aimed at me.


Yes jim is right but who stated that CF did otherwise, It certainly was not me.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

I think of gravity as a constant 'stream' of energy carrying everything with it that isn't fixed or tied down.

If gravity acts like a constant stream or a river carrying everything with it then how does a cork carried from the head of the river all the way down to the ocean ever get back up to the head again? Isn't that the full cycle?

[rlortie]

It is my conclusive opinion. That once a mass is free of any support, gravity becomes a potential force and in Bessler's terms creates energy in a mechanical form, usable by transference or connectedness.

Ralph

[rlortie]

I think of gravity as a constant 'stream' of energy carrying everything with it that isn't fixed or tied down.

If gravity acts like a constant stream or a river carrying everything with it then how does a cork carried from the head of the river all the way down to the ocean ever get back up to the head again? Isn't that the full cycle?

Have you not been keeping up! Centrifugal force. Come on Bill, John is not stating full cycle he is only talking about his descriptive thoughts of gravity.

Ralph