Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[ovyyus]

By saying "one side is heavy, the other empty and light", he is telling you that the wheel is gravity driven. That much seems obvious.

Graham, I think what you have concluded above, "that the wheel is gravity driven", exactly sums up the general position that most people take after reading Bessler's descriptions of his wheel. A cranks head starts spinning with possibilities of a gravity driven mechanism, a physicists head starts shaking in the knowledge that gravity is a conservative force.

IMO, both cranks and physicists read Bessler's statements and clues incorrectly. Bessler willingly described the overbalanced aspect of his wheels with statements like, 'one side is heavy, the other empty and light', and he describes different methods that might be employed to create an overbalancing mechanism. But you will never read him describing or even hinting about what is driving the overbalance and lifting the weights inside his wheel. Never a word about the prime mover, his secret - ever.

'Never did I hear a word of praise, though I was criticised from all directions. But I never changed, never once wavered, because a single word could have betrayed my wondrous achievement.'

I really do think the overbalanced wheel is the red herring here - everyone is running around in circles over it. To Bessler's intentional delight, I'm sure :D

[Fletcher]

There is more than one system at work here ...

Yes, it appears very much so. See ...

... all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712." - pg 295

... and they are interdependant...I think that would be right...one affects the other....and the resultant is an OOB condition.

This is what I assumed to be the case a few years ago, as it seemed the logical conclusion - a sort of leap frogging or exchanging of energies from one to the other & back again - passing the hot potato but always keeping the potato on one side of the wheel.

Later I realized that this wasn't the only conclusion that could be arrived at - the other scenario was that there was a simple OOB secondary system that was interchangable to a fair degree - it was the driver that caused the rotation of the wheel i.e. it provided the torque to turn the wheel. That meant that the Prime Mover was required to shift the weights to their starting imbalance position so that the wheel would then attempt to keel.

This meant that they might not be interdependent - the OOB system needed the Prime Mover but not necessarily the other way around - though it seemed highly unlikely [especially if considering a thermal gradient analogy] that would require rapid heating & rapid cooling so a fan effect from the secondary system might be an advantage to aid cooling or evaporation etc.

I eventually settled on the most likely scenario [in my mind] that the two systems were indeed required to interact, especially as I had also concluded that a dynamic system was required to operate the wheel but that it was 'primed/pre-set' to an overbalanced state [from the secondary OOB system being cocked] to start that dynamic motion to activate the Prime Mover - I realize this is at odds with your beliefs Steve that it was always OOB & we agree to disagree on that part.

OK, ....once this is known, it does have to be regulated...would you not agree? I mean, OOB is not a problem...controlling (regulating) then becomes the priority or it would not be able to balance at it's new found PQ. I hope this makes sense....

It's RPM would be regulated by the time available for the subsystems to do their thing & shift weights around inside the wheel - the larger the wheel diameter the more time available for repositioning & the more torque able to be dialled up - to little time & the torque goes down because it cannot reposition into the optimum torque generating position fast enough before the rim has moved on & down.

[bluesgtr44]

Bill...please, in case I have missed it...can you explain in any way how a thermal gradient can drive a device from 0-50 in 2 revolutions, fluidly...and have enough left over to cook you breakfast in the morning (see the humor here cause I love ya, guy!)

I mean, wow! Instant heat, right? Unless we are missing something....Basically, if you know something we don't know...I am alright with that, but don't make me look like a dumb a$$ because you have access to a vital peice of information I do not have access to....just wondering how thermal could possibly perform a lot of what is being described of the performances of, especially, the first two wheels. The Gera wheel was evidentallly started and stopped continually from what seems to be described...how could a thermal reaction respond in this way...I'm having trouble seeing this respond as witnesses described.

Bill, I'm not knockin' your theory...only asking that if you know something I don't know, would just send me a little e-mail and explain what I am missing? It just seems to me if it is thermal, the reaction time has lots of 'splainin' to do....


Steve

[ovyyus]

Well Steve, I'm not sure how long I want to wait for my cooked breakfast when I only have about 25 Watts (Bessler's largest and most powerful wheel) to cook it with :D

I'm not trying to make anyone look like a dumb ass mate, just trying to crack this old nut as best I can. You're asking me for technical details that I either don't have or am unwilling to give.

What I do think is that the problem needs a fresh direction as it seems clear that the gravity and inertia folk have come up empty handed after how many centuries of effort now? Finding thermal gradients everywhere you look isn't that hard, finding clever ways of exploiting and amplifying them requires a little more effort.

Even a small child standing in a room produces far more than 25Watts of continuous, invisible heat output. Where does that heat go? Heat rises, cold falls. Maybe that's a good start? All Bessler needed was a couple of Watts to drive his first wheel and prove a principle. After that it was just a matter of refinement and development. Just a couple of measly Watts.

[arthur]

ovvyus says,

both cranks and physicists read Bessler's statements and clues incorrectly

OK BILL NYE:

This must be why you have a working wheel!!!!!
because you know the big secret that the wheels power is not from gravity ---but from the heat in the air!! lol

Must be I'm the crank for thinking there was some reason it's called a gravity wheel.

I should have learned while reading the textbook in science class that gravity wheels are impossible!

How foolish of me!!!!!!

[bluesgtr44]

...on the thermal approach...Fischer was so impressed with the way that Besslers' wheel would, once the initial impression was made..."take off" of it's own accord...this meant more to him than if the wheel turned for a whole year, that this was PPM. He did this...many times in a row. How could a themal reaction be so fluid? I mean, this is tight timing here....think about it. I'm not knockin' the thermal thing, just explain a few of these things...hey Doc!?! I might need some help here...;-)


Steve

[arthur]

To be truthful I believe that the working wheel design could be understood by a three year old.

Everyone just assumes the answer is complex so they automatically overlook the simple answer.

I bet a 10 year old kid has a better chance of solving this problem than any type of rocket scientist.

[docfeelsgood]

dont worry Steve i got ya covered with my newest invention !! a PPm- OOb powered clay pigon thrower converted ta wing rocks !!! every third rock is a tracer !!!! waitll this bad boy hits rock & dirt news !!! instead of sending your donations ta me just send em ta the hospital to help defray victems costs !!

[Fletcher]

Arthur .. Bessler called it a 'Gravity Wheel' because he did not want to call it a "Thermal Gravity Wheel" [btw .. insert any Prime Mover Force you desire as Thermal is just an example]. He was still telling the truth, just not all of it.

Steve .. his two way wheels needed a light push to build up momentum - they imo required a dynamic motion to activate the Prime Mover whether it be thermal or something else. When it wasn't turning it wasn't generating any additional force imo. I know you think there were opposing mechs counterbalancing each other until motion in one direction overcame the resistance of the other but that is not the only conclusion possible. Your scenario would require a constant force always on tap & available to the Prime Mover - that may appear the case in the one way wheel demonstrations but to me that seems at odds with the two way demonstrations !

[ovyyus]

Arthur, what Bill actually said was, "IMO, both cranks and physicists read Bessler's statements and clues incorrectly." But hey, don't let that stop you making lots of !!!!!'s :D

[bluesgtr44]

...I love ya, Doc! If you lose your sense of humor in matters of intelligence...you have no more tangible intelligence....Me! Ask the questions...be bold.

[arthur]

all you scientists keep saying that

"gravity cannot be the prime moving force because it 's a conservative force and.....blah blah blah.... "

........Ok whatever

But imagine this:
--lay bessler's wheel flat (horizontal) on the ground and give it a spin. it does not accelerate.
--stand it vertical: give it a spin and it accelerates.

....................gravity is not the "prime mover"????????????
Its force comes from falling weights!!!!!!

[jim_mich]

Arthur, you don't know what would happen if Bessler's wheel were to be layed flat on the ground!

Bessler's last two wheel did not turn until given a push. So obviously they were not out of balance when not turning. We don't know if they were out of balance or not while tuning, only that they had enough torque to do work while turning. There is no proof that it was gravity that supplied the torque.

[bluesgtr44]

Yo Fletch...just an aside, I really appreciate your input on this board! Insightful and forward moving, IMHO...

Steve .. his two way wheels needed a light push to build up momentum - they imo required a dynamic motion to activate the Prime Mover whether it be thermal or something else. When it wasn't turning it wasn't generating any additional force imo.

What if the force could be applied TDC until it was tilted one way or the other...I could draft a scenario, not solution or that crap, just a way I could see this at "rest"....but, push it one way or the other...it falls into the other mechanism and applies itself at a 90 degree axis. The bi-directional wheels were almost double the depth of the one way wheels as is well noted. So, push this way and the load goes there....push the other way and the load goes that away...back to back devices with an established path?


Steve

[10x]

gravity cannot be the prime moving force because it 's a conservative force

Not saying it cant be.
Drop a brick on ye foot and it does show it will do work.
Now how do you get the brick back up?

In a balance wheel how do you reset it with out using all the energy plus to get it there?