Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[evgwheel]

I have not been home for the last 24 hour and was looking forward to reading the latest posts. All about gravity, and energy, and force. (Bummer)
Isn’t this a bit like calling a car an automobile or vehicle, or what ever?
Energy is a source built up, like putting petrol in your car or eating your breakfast.
Energy and potential energy should be the same. Force is the use of stored energy released, or energy by any other name. Force has different attachment to its name too. Any energy no matter how created, in different circumstances can be used for kinetic force, C.F. and many more, but in all forces, stored energy (Energy) supplies the force.
Gravity to me is one of those things that will not be depleted and does not have to be renewed or primed. Gravity is a free gift to all bodies, the more dense and the bigger they are (density, black hole) the more gravity. It is very different from springs, water and air, although they are effected by gravity. Earths gravity provides more energy and in turn provides more forces, than we as people can create, except with the blowing up the earth in small pieces where it loses its mass,
The only thing I could think of gravity is like a permanent magnet, and that comes from magnetic north and true north which is anything between 30 and 0 degrees.
I just read this and it sound like rubbish, but I am not new to posting rubbish.
May you have plenty of energy, so the force can be with you. EVG

[Bessler007]

One more thing, do the weights gain force from swinging or energy?

The energy in the swing of the weights can add force to the wheel. That's been my observation. My avatar depicts the cog of a pendulum. The 1/2 power point isn't at the bottom of the swing. It is a fascinating version of a yin-yang.

If I didn't have a concept of the rate of doing work I wouldn't know what I was looking at. I wouldn't know where to look.

As ovyyus pointed out once the potential of a mass is realized in terms of work that mass is spent. Somewhere you have to find the energy to restore it to where it came from so you can spend it again.

From a physicists point of view that's impossible.

Who knows how a discussion like this could help someone. I think it's like chicken noodle soup for a crank. Couldn't hurt. We're often characterized as being ignorant or stupid or both.

[rlortie]

evgwheel,

Rubbish! I do not think so! Looks like a pretty good statement to me. Good description of what has been transpiring here. Good rubbish--------- Bad rubbish! Darn there is even gradient in rubbish! :-)

Ralph

[rlortie]

Bessler007,

It is late for me and I am getting tired and mischievous so bear with me. I do this only to make a point!

T

he energy in the swing of the weights can add force to the wheel

Swinging weights create energy not force but force is added to the wheel. The wheel does what with this force, if it is turning it is energy!

Please do not take me serious it is all in jest for the point! a play of words. Dazzle with brilliance, I would rather be baffled with bull.

Ralph

[arthur]

evg,

I agree that gravity can be compared to magnets.

The way I see it gravity and magnetism are practically identical

matter to a gravity field is JUST LIKE iron to a magnet's field

I believe that endless spinning motion can be created with the power of magnetic fields as well as gravity fields

[rlortie]

Page after page of What is force and what is energy, How do you retrieve it, how do you replace it.

Has anybody out there heard of a flywheel explained in physics talk like we have seen here.

A flywheel the bigger the better, the more displaced weight around the rim the better. RPM based on size and density of wheel.

It retains energy: kinetic inertia, and centrifugal. It has the force/energy to overcome the recycling of weights. It has the capability to smooth out an osculating pendulum into smooth rotary power.

it is round and therefore a closed loop of gradient, potential or what ever you wish to call it.

Oh! if I only had Bessler's 12 footer.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

One thing is clear from this discussion, a great many don't understand basic physics. It would appear that centuries of observations and careful definitions and measurements of the natural world amount to nothing in the face of "I believe". Is it any wonder we're called cranks :D

[arthur]

its just my 2 cents, I apologize for thinking outside of the institutionalized science paradigm.

[evgwheel]

I believe that the pot now contains 4 cents (just added 2)
If any of this forum has merit, and we still have great scientist living in this world now, who are not going to invent Besslers wheel. And I also belief that Bessler himself was not a “I know all� person. And in addition I belief, that his education was most likely less then ours. And I also belief that being an expert at one thing may close your mind to other things around you. That is what I belief. EVG (Just for fun)

Addition; I believe that if you can built a wheel the size of this world it will work with a bit of steel placed in the right places. This is getting lame. Goodnight

[rmd3]

I know I have intuitive disagreements with some higher order definitions of energy in basic physics despite their apparent convenience in solving problems (which can be solved using basic physics even without the concepts of energy).

I think people think perpetual motion is possible because of their intuitive understandings of observed phenomena.

Add 2 cents more to the pot.

[John Collins]

Bill, you said,

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?

The analogy was suggested to prove that gravity, although a conservative force according to mainstream physics, has the same features under some circumstances, as flowing water and the wind. So if we can use water flow and wind to drive turbines etc, that may suggest that we can do the same with gravity.

So water and wind can behave like conservative forces and yet we are taught that gravity wheels cannot work because gravity is a conservative force - so they are wrong in my opinion.

John

[graham]

I'm not getting in to this lively debate on force and energy, I'll leave it to the experts and then side with the winner.

But I was thinking about that journey to the center of the Earth.
I reckon that you would be crushed .
The further you get from the center of the Earth the weaker the force of gravity becomes.
At the center of the Earth gravity is at its maximum and would be pressing in on you from every direction and I believe you would be no larger than one of these . (observe that little dot after "these")

Graham

[jim_mich]

John is trying to state "Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics"

So water and wind can behave like conservative forces and yet we are taught that gravity wheels cannot work because gravity is a conservative force - so they are wrong in my opinion.

The analogy doesn't hold up. Wind and water are flowing mass. Mass has inertia. It is the inertia that makes the wind and water have the ability to move wheels. This might not be readily apparent at first, so let me try to explain.

There are three scenarios for both wind and water. In the first you have a straight difference in pressure. Wind blowing on a flat sheet or plate (square to the flow) will cause the sheet to move, and likewise with water. But in order to move the sheet back against the flow requires an identical force. In this respect both wind and water will act like gravity.

The second scenario is having the flow only hit one side. This is like a water wheel or an air stream that get directed at only one side of a wheel. This works for water and air but there is no way to cause gravity to hit only one side of a wheel.

The third scenario is to redirect the flow of wind or water. This is done by using an impeller or a sail that is angled into the wind. In this case the air and water gets redirected and the inertia of the moving air or water pushes against the sail or impeller at an angle to the flow. It is this angular deflection that makes an impeller or sail work. But gravity doesn't have inertia. So there is no angular deflection of mass to cause an imbalance on a wheel.

Does this mean that it is impossible to use gravity to turn a wheel? Yes, using only gravity to turn a wheel is impossible because gravity has no mass and thus has no inertia that can be redirected to cause an unbalanced force on a wheel. So scenario one won't work with gravity because you need an equal push back up after being pushed down. Scenario two won't work because you can't shield gravity. Scenario three won't work because gravity doesn’t have inertia.

So what can we do to make a wheel work? Think about how wind or water coupled with gravity turns a wheel. It is a multi step process. A force causes a first mass (air or water) to move. That movement brings about unbalanced forces against other masses (sail or water wheel). Those unbalanced forces of the first mass against the second mass causes the second mass to move. The first mass changes speed and direction as it imparts its inertial energy to the second mass.

So does a working wheel require two masses interacting with each other in order to work? I think it does. This seems to fit Bessler's two and two (pair of pairs) statement.

[Michael]

The analogy doesn't hold up. Wind and water are flowing mass. Mass has inertia. It is the inertia that makes the wind and water have the ability to move wheels.

.....................Jim's post.....................


It is a multi step process.

.............

Finally a description I hope will suffice.

[John Collins]

It seems fairly clear to me that most of you aren't getting this. I thought that analogy might be the way to go but perhaps my analogies aren't making things clear enough.

Jim-Mich you say that "Wind and water are flowing mass. Mass has inertia", I agree.

You offer three scenarios which I also agree with. Scenario one applies in the case of Bessler's wheel. You say "... using only gravity to turn a wheel is impossible because gravity has no mass and thus has no inertia that can be redirected to cause an unbalanced force on a wheel." I don't agree because using gravity to turn a wheel is possible and I'll tell you why. You are right when you say that gravity has no mass and therefore no inertia, but as I said earlier in this thread, the weights have mass and inertia just as wind and water do. It's the weights which provide the mass and the inertia and are driven by gravity.

There is no difference between gravity making water flow down hill and gravity making the weights fall down.

You finished by saying "So does a working wheel require two masses interacting with each other in order to work? I think it does. This seems to fit Bessler's two and two (pair of pairs) statement".

I agree in part but I have never accepted the 'two pairs of pairs' statement. I have always believed that there are pairs of weights and they work with each other but not pairs of pairs.

Of course this is just my opinion but it is based on the conviction that only gravity is necessary for the gravity wheel to work.

John