Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[John Collins]

Welcome to the cruel world of scientific fact.

Quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

That, Bessler007 is precisely my point and gravity, being external to the machine, can provide endless energy exchangesa as it is continuously entering the system.

John

[John Collins]

if your simply agreeing that all forms of energy are conserved then I agree.

Michael, I arrived at the conclusions I have described, because I accepted Bessler's claim that his machine was driven by gravity. Proceeding from that point I examined the reasons given which appear to precluded gravity wheels. There were three reasons given which I described thus:-

1) They are said to break the law of conservation of energy.

2) Gravity is a conservative force and as such cannot be so used.

3) Gravity wheels won’t work because the path of a falling weight is not necessary for calculating the amount of work done by gravity in making it fall, and therefore creating different paths for rising and falling weights does not achieve a mechanical advantage to one side of the centre of gravity.

The first one was easy to refute if you accept gravity is external to the system (Bessler's wheel).

The second one is arguably wrong because other forces which are also conservative are also used to drive machinery.

The third one is not relevant if you have torque introduced by two or more weights.

What could be simpler to understand than that?

John

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

I'm sure you are not daft. It is clear the force of gravity is outside a gravity wheel.

A problem arises using the force of gravity in rotation. Peak energy diminishes. Peak energy is greatest in a vertical drop. That's one aspect of entropy. Another very important aspect of entropy is the significant difference between a weight falling or rising within the field. You could look at the differences between escape velocity and various terminal velocities to see that difference. The less the time of the movement the greater the cost in energy. The orbital mechanics of a wheel can't ignore the difference of direction and the effect on energy. It is an extreme result of the first point (deviation from the line of force of gravity moving a mass down diminishes peak energy).

When a mass looses peak energy as it swings away from the linear movement of the force of gravity the very small difference can exist in the torque of the swing. Exchanging that force of torque has its own associated costs. The more use you attempt to make of it the less it exists. That's one cost. A weight or mass does increase the force of torque but it pays the piper by developing less peak energy during the time of its vertical descent.

That's what I've observed.

When the physicist explains you can't win and you can't break even and you can't escape, it seems they have some good points. I don't think it's productive to analogize forces to energy. I do agree the force of gravity is outside the wheel.

That, Bessler007 is precisely my point and gravity, being external to the machine, can provide endless energy exchangesa as it is continuously entering the system.

John

[evgwheel]

Do we really have to know what gravity is? Just knowing and observing how gravity effect objects we use every day should be an indication of what we can do with it.
Do we really have to know how waves are formed? Just knowing the power of waves, we can imagine how to tap its power. Do we really need to know how winds are formed? If you feel it, it is there to be used.
Do we really have to know the relationship between the earth and the moon and tides, where billions of mega liters of water move great distances? (Someone may have been right about gravity and water (ocean)).

Just go to the shed and make the 150 different configuration of the wheel until you number 151, which will work!

[Fletcher]

John .. I recognize that you have given this a lot of thought & arrived at your conclusions as stated.

The are based on the predilection that Besslers wheels were gravity driven, as he said - not many will deny that - what they do question is the total reliance on gravity - most accept that an OOB wheel had a part to play - you seem to have taken the position that it is the only source of force - I think this is a tad myopic imo.

My second comment can tie your last two points about conservative gravity & the path weights take into one - much of this discussion board has been precisely about why scientists are only interested in PE = mgh & not the horizontal path a weight may take - we here call it the 'trading height for width' issue - it is to the core of your leverage torque argument & why it cannot work as you predict imo.

So ... Why does Potential Energy = mgh & not the horizontal path the weight takes during its decent ?

[jim_mich]

I've re-written this post a number of times and feel it would be too complex for some to understand (especially Ralph). So I'm making this very brief...

If we ignore other methods such ambient air pressures & temperatures, then Bessler's wheels where turned by either gravity or by inertial momentum. If gravity was not the source of the energy then only inertial momentum is left.

If you can cause weights to have more force helping them to move in one direction than to hinder them in moving back to the start position then you get a gain in energy. If the movement is on a rotating wheel then the movement can be used to make the wheel out of balance and gravity will do the rest.

[evgwheel]

Good post Jim-Mich
Except for your added personal remark

[Fletcher]

A Simplified Flow Chart of Possibilities ?

[rlortie]

evgwheel,

Except for your added personal remark

Thats alright, let him have his egomania trip, I consider the source and have already posted that I did not wish to carry a grudge.

If we ignore other methods such ambient air pressures & temperatures, then Bessler's wheels where turned by either gravity or by inertial momentum. If gravity was not the source of the energy then only inertial momentum is left.

First off, I do understand and it is basically what I have been saying all along. IMO it is gravity and inertia, working together and the second being the result of the first. CF does not play a role and is more detrimental than of any use.

Every mass including a beer can has a resonance that once started and maintained will amplify, the same as CF compounds itself to velocity. A gravitational pulse not unlike Milkovic's pendulum on a beam will build inertia, all you need is to put this in a 360 degree radial configuration that will be self initiating.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

your flow chart is simplified, I would complicate it by adding another arrow from momentum back to gravity.

Ralph

[Michael]

A gravitational pulse not unlike Milkovic's pendulum on a beam will build inertia, all you need is to put this in a 360 degree radial configuration that will be self initiating.

Okay then Ralph, show me the proof.

And Ralph, if you don't believe that the example of vacuum is a good example for both my statement of lesser, and yours as per here;

The lesser acts upon the greater and in doing so moves upon and spreads out to the greater, and not through.

then please tell me what you mean by lesser and provide a real world example where it acts as you stated in your sentence I quoted.

[evgwheel]

Proof
Right
Wrong
Are we all aiming to discover a free energy wheel, with the main source of energy coming from gravity?
If so, is this forum meant to learn from each other by input from all members, and broaden our own minds?
As no one on this forum has made a working wheel, from the most simple minded to the mechanical engineer and the scientific genius, who are all part of this forum, isn’t it time to ask for a better explanation from the person if they state an opinion, instead of asking for proof?
Is our own theory on the wheel the only right one?
Can we look at other snippets in someone else’s post and see possibilities or do we not have an open mind?
Should we dismiss any idea posted, because it does not fit in with our Idea?
Should we ask the previous poster you do not agree with, if your statement is right, how do you overcome this and that?

No one has a working wheel, so we are all wrong in our thinking, Let us get together and find out why we are all wrong

[Michael]

A proof is a better explanation evgwheel, in fact - it's the proper one.
A proof need not be a physical demonstration so don't be mistaken. A workable example.

[Fletcher]

Unfortunately Ralph I would not put another arrow back from Momentum to Gravity.

The reasons are these - as you know Momentum is a vector measurement of an objects Inertia & Kinetic Energy [its resistance to change in velocity & direction, & its energy of movement].

Gravity is a force that causes the vertical acceleration of all objects with Mass.

N.B.1. Gravity accelerates all objects downwards in the vertical plane with the same rate of acceleration & with total disregard to its Mass.

N.B.2. Any sideways horizontal shifting component to the fall retards the acceleration rate [therefore Kinetic Energy] & is exactly equalled by the friction, heat, sound losses & any back torque the shifting mech might cause.

Therefore Gravity always exerts the same force on an object regardless of its Inertia [vis a vis its momentum]. As a result an objects initial Momentum state has no bearing on its vertical acceleration force experienced/acceleration rate due to gravity [unless there is a horizontal component of shifting - see N.B.2. above].

This means that Gravity affects Momentum but Momentum does not effect Gravity.

Feel free to give me an example where it does effect gravity, then I can update my thinking ?

[rlortie]

Michael,

Okay then Ralph, show me the proof.

Did I not emphasize by underling 'IMO' this in my world means that I may not have readily proof, or I am throwing it out there for forum debate. Of course you did a brevity edit and left that part out.

then please tell me what you mean by lesser and provide a real world example where it acts as you stated in your sentence I quoted.

Example is a small rhythmic pulse of force applied to a larger swinging mass in resonance with the time/amplitude of the swing.

Ralph