Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[Fletcher]

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?

Well, theoretically it looks possible but the devils in the detail I'd say.

So, care to explain how Bessler's one-way wheel started turning by itself from a stopped position, since no dynamic force could be acting if the wheel was at rest...? ;)

Could it be that the wheel OOB system was pre-cocked & tied down so that it had positive torque to get it moving dynamically until the Prime Mover could do its thing.

What a great thread, thanks all. I think maybe there's still some ambient energy in the air we haven't tapped. Not necessarily thermal either. Silly me :-)

What is it today ? - everyman & his dog has a theory about the Prime Mover :)

It seems there are only a few possibilities Scott & I think yours is right on the money. For the record my theory of the Prime Mover is indeed Aerodynamic Lift [insert gnashing of teeth, open eyed wonderment & shaking of head] - but not used in the way that you might expect - I have brewed over this for a very long time - I have run the concept & design by a small focus group who it is probably fair to say are interested in my experiments when they are complete, but are not all to keen to exactly 'slap me on the back' just yet ;) - most of us have been round the block before - I will say while I think the concept & design looks very good to me, I have been very tardy in building it - it is indeed quite simple but the build is difficult & exacting [even for the experiments before the main build] & so I am procrastinating & wasting time - though I am satisfied in my mind that Aerodynamic Lift [AL] is where the answer lies.

[bluesgtr44]

Steve, as the diameter of a wheel increases then it's rim velocity must increase for the same RPM.

Yes, Bill...I know this and this is what pisses me off!

Here comes Jims theory...increased rim velocity equals increased CF...correct me if I am wrong here....

Why is our wheel not turning?!?


Steve

[John Collins]

Steve and Fletch, you mention the idea of two systems or processes working in the wheel, but you both seem to be looking for the extra energy from either ambient energy or from some other gradient energy 'out there'. This is how I see it.

The prime mover is the weights that move the wheel by producing torque due to their being in an OOB position, so the thing which moves those weights into their OOB position is what we look for. Bessler said his weights worked in pairs which suggests that secondary weights provided the impetus to move the primary weights. Each pair of weights consisted of a prime mover and a secondary mover.

The wheels were permanently OOB because when the wheel was stopped and tied down, the secondary weights naturally fell into a position which forced the prime movers to adopt an OOB position. As soon as the wheel was released and began to turn because the primary weights were OOB, they fell into a neutral position (not OOB) but the secondary weights would then be pushed into their own OOB position and at some point in rotation they would succeed in pushing the primary weights OOB again.

What I want to know is this. If the primary weights providing the OOB position are using gravity to turn the wheel, and the secondary weights are also using gravity to force the primary ones OOB but not directly making the wheel turn, why are they not able to do this without infringing any physical laws?

In other words what is different about using a secondary set of weights in place of a thermal gradient to move the primary weights? If thermal gradients are acceptable as a secondary source of energy, why not a secondary bite of gravity?

That is why I said I was coming around to Bill's way of thinking but not completely. It seems to me that we are all looking for a secondary source of energy, such as thermal gradients or barometric differences, when there has been one available to us all the time - gravity.

John

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Michael...

Steve, consider the average wheel turning at 26 rpm. Let's say it was 30 rpm. Typically one might think that a thermal source would need to act fast but looking at it another way if there was one thermal charge per each overbalancing weight, said charges only have to fire once per rotation. That means every 2 seconds, which is a lot of time. If there were 2 charges per overbalancing weight and they took turns, every 4 seconds. 4 charges every 8 etc etc etc.

I can't let go of the one directional wheels, Michael. I think by the time he got to the grand marquis wheel...the Kassel...he had pretty much mastered his art. The Draschwitz was clocked at over 50 rpm's...that is humming! No bad intentions, Jim...how do you work with that! Show me...I wanna learn, really!


Steve

P.S. I am patient, if your patent works out...I'm your poster child...

[rlortie]

John wrote;

What I want to know is this. If the primary weights providing the OOB position are using gravity to turn the wheel, and the secondary weights are also using gravity to force the primary ones OOB but not directly making the wheel turn, why are they not able to do this without infringing any physical laws?

It is my opinion that too much emphasize is placed on believing that the machine is a wheel. Did not Bessler say something to to the effect that if those who looked upon it wish to call it a wheel then let it be so!

Remove the first usage of the words "turn" and "wheel" from the above quote, leave the phrase intact "not directly making the wheel turn".

IMO we have been chasing wheels for over 300 years, don't you think it is time to consider something else that could readily fit in a drum. swinging weights can be interpreted as pivoting weights much easier than rotating, revolving or spinning weights.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Well John .. the devils in the detail as we all seem to agree with our designs - you have gravity as the prime mover where two weights influence each other into a position of continuous OOB for the wheel & gravity also provides the shifting force - I'll come back to that.

Jim sees the prime mover as CF/inertial leverage to cause the weights to be overbalanced.

Bill sees the prime mover as a thermal mechanism that causes the wheel weights to continuously overbalance.

I see the prime mover as Aerodynamic Lift that causes the secondary weights into a position of overbalance & springs restore the weights to their original positions.

Each one of us is trying our hardest [except me ;)] to do the experiments that will prove the possibility that their Prime Mover is the correct one to use. Each is equally convinced that theirs is the correct approach - lets hope that one is ultimately correct [or someone elses]. The reason I don't divulge my exact design openly is that even a small group of experts [at knowing what won't work] can never agree on just a theory, as evidenced by this thread - the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say, so it is up to each person with a theory to either produce it for public consumption & discussion [they should have some good math skills as its likely to be controversial & a thick hide] or produce the highest level of proof available - a working model - that even the doubters can't deny. Now I may be over complicating things here but the final solution is likely not to be clear cut to everyone & debate will rage & a lot of time would be spent defending your theory which ultimately is indefensible without physical proof of concept - when I have evidence for or against my theory then I will present the findings for dissection.

Now back to paired weights causing a continuous OOB condition. I can only go from my own experience John. Whenever I tried in the past to use a primary set of weights to fall & shift another set to create overbalance my wheels always keeled. This was because the Center of Mass [CoM] of the entire wheel dropped below the axle & I could never recover it to its original potential again without an external helping hand.

As I said early in this thread I would expect you to have an ace argument up your sleeve to show me/us why it is possible to restore full CoM potential & do some work to boot using gravity alone, in which case I will begin polishing my spoon for big servings of humble pie & eat it gratefully.

[arthur]

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

Ovvyus, sorry for calling you Bill Nye.
I didn't know what IMO meant until just now!!! lol
This is the 1st forum I've really ever used. just catching onto the lingo.

[ovyyus]

Well said Fletcher. I wonder what is the source of the wind which allows your aerodynamic lifter to work? Perhaps a thermal breeze is just what you need :D

John, IMO no matter which way up you turn the gravity argument you're still left with the inescapable fact that careful and objective observations and measurements show that, in a closed path, falling weights gain no more energy than is used to lift them. Every experiment bears that out. Of course some people will always want to believe otherwise.

[ovyyus]

No problem Arthur.

[arthur]

careful and objective observations and measurements show that, in a closed path, falling weights gain no more energy than is used to lift them. Every experiment bears that out. Of course some people will always want to believe otherwise.

That would be me ;) regarding this seemingly certain statement, I believe that a loophole exists.
The universe does have mysteries.

Of course what goes up must come down and a weight has to rise the same distance that it falls. I cannot argue with that.

But I believe that with a clever arrangement of shifting wights:
a falling weight indeed can apply more torque than it's rising counterpart.

There is a god after all.

[Fletcher]

Yes Bill .. AL does seem to have some rather big 'show stoppers' not least of all maintaining relative air flow inside a closed wheel where the air circulates with the wheel. Persistence beats resistance or I'm heading for a rather large fall ;)

[ovyyus]

That would be me ;) regarding this seemingly certain statement, I believe that a loophole exists. The universe does have mysteries.

The statement I made isn't "seemingly certain". Rather, it's a description of the current observations and measurements, which are quite certain. I think that what is seemingly uncertain are the various held belief's, such as your belief in a loophole, that aren't necessarily supported by testable observation and/or measurement.

IMO, a position of belief must naturally be tested as a matter of course when it is directed towards trying to describe how physical things work. Testing attached personal belief's in god along the way might not be a good idea.

[arthur]

ovvyus said

careful and objective observations and measurements show that, in a closed path, falling weights gain no more energy than is used to lift them

for sure Bill Nye the science guy, like you said this statement is a description of certain observations. I understand.

However, just because people continually observe balanced wheels does not make "over-balance" impossible.

All I'm trying to say is,
I don't think that people should give up on [{clever & simple), weighted, (spring assisted) lever system arrangements] just yet,
all because "careful and objective observations and measurements have somehow proven that all wheels balance".

[John Collins]

Hi Bill. While I concede that your words 'in a closed path, falling weights gain no more energy than is used to lift thems' are correct, I cannot escape the conclusion that there is more to this than meets the eye. If I physically moved the weights out at the right moment and back again at the right moment, the wheel overbalances so all we have to do is find a way of getting the wheel to do this without intervention from any human source!!!!!!!

I remain convinced that gravity can also provide this additional input. I accept your comment Fletch that this has not been achieved to date but I have an idea how this can be done - the principle I gleaned from Bessler's publications.

John

[ovyyus]

All I'm trying to say is,
I don't think that people should give up on [{clever & simple), weighted, (spring assisted) lever system arrangements] just yet...

And I would never suggest that they do either. However, in the specific case of Bessler, I think there is good reason to suspect that his secret didn't violate any currently accepted laws of Physics - as would be the case if it was gravity powered.

Long question: ...centuries of experiments all support the currently held view that gravity acts as a conservative force. Enter Bessler with a wheel that's supposed to contradict every experiment and scientific observation made up to that time. He shows his secret to Karl, Karl publically agree's that it's a PMM and states that it's surprisingly simple. A great man of wealth and knowledge and nobility doesn't seem to want his name forever etched into history as the man who introduced "True PM" to the World. A true gravity driven wheel would have been, still would be, the greatest discovery imaginable. It would arguably change everything we know about physics. Yet Karl actually didn't pay the relatively small sum asked by Bessler and etch his name forever in history. Karl must have known how the wheel worked. Yet he appeared fairly disinterested, beyond promoting it's curiosity to would-be buyers. What did Karl know about Bessler's secret that caused him to not act on what would have been the opportunity of a lifetime?