Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[Bessler007]

Hello Arthur,

....
does the currently accepted laws of Physics claim that an "over-balanced" wheel is impossible?
....

This is precisely correct. The point Mr. Collins was making by starting this thread is an over-balanced gravity powered wheel wouldn't. If you contact the physics department of any university in the world and asked them the question they would answer yes. You won't find any disagreement among physicists about this point.

If a gravity powered out of balanced wheel were possible that would mean you managed to find a path for a mass to travel upward against the force of gravity at less cost in terms of energy than it produced in the drop. A proof either mathematically or in a model would disprove the conservative nature of gravity by creating a means of utilizing gravity to inject additional energy into that orbital system.

Any physicist in the world who had that proof would be headline news.

[John Collins]

Fletch wrote,

the difference there is John's interpretation of what is called the primary & secondary weight system. He calls the gravity OOB system the primary because that rotates the wheel. I & others call it the secondary because we must employ a Prime Mover force to cause the OOB weights to be OOB in the first place i.e. Primary = First , that is, without the Prime Mover First Force the other/secondary can't get past the keel & remains in balance & so no continuous rotation of the wheel

I am working with the two systems because Bessler said his weights worked in pairs and that seems a solid clue to me. Why 'pairs' if one weight did not work with the other? What purpose would 'pairs' of weight have other than to have an effect on each other? It seems to me that if one weight requires the presence of its pair then it must be because the secret to the wheel's mechanism requires this double action.

I call gravity the prime mover because according to my own thinking it moves the main or primary weight which is already OOB and thus overbalances the wheel. As Steve pointed out the wheels are already OOB when tied down, but the secondary weights which caused the main weights to be OOB must already have fallen into their own balanced position. But since they too were made to fall by gravity then you could say that gravity is the primary and secondary energy source.

John

[Fletcher]

I think John there is little doubt that he meant exactly that - that the weights worked in pairs i.e. one each side of the wheel opposed by the other, but one closer to the axle thus having less torque than the other - whether that can or does also mean pairs of weights interacting together, as in influencing each other, would be a matter of interpretation imo.

Jim's 'pairs of pairs' would seem to better fit in that regard perhaps ?

[Bessler007]

arthur,

To cause weights to orbit on earth around an axis requires energy to overcome entropy. Einstein said a perpetual motion machine (perpetual motion capable of doing work) was impossible by eliminating entropy.

He also said a perpetual motion machine that created energy was impossible. That would be the case of using gravity to turn a wheel. He never said a perpetual motion machine was impossible. That would be a tough position for a theoretical physicist to defend. The expansion of the universe is constantly injecting energy into our reality of constantly moving matter. The norm of reality is perpetual motion.

Some people agree with Einstein. That's a safe position. If you were to ever make a gravity powered pmm they could say, heck, even Einstein missed the bus on that one. :)

[arthur]

a path for a mass to travel upward against the force of gravity at less cost in terms of energy than it produced in the drop.

this is a good description of the bessler concept IMO.

[arthur]

I had something written here but I deleted it.

[arthur]

I'm sure that weights on bessler's wheel traveled a longer path (with greater velocity) when falling,
and a shorter path (with less velocity) when rising.


...farther from axle when falling,
...closer to axle when rising.

[ovyyus]

Could there be an arrangement where the path of a weight overlaps the path of a previous one and creates the OOB we seek?

You still think there's some combination of rising and falling weights, ie: specific number/groupings, connections, mass, speed, acceleration, swinging, spinning, etc, etc, which might somehow trick gravity into overbalancing the wheel? I think, in the case of Bessler's wheel, more evidence points away from that premise than toward it.

My personal feeling, which is clearly shared by others here, would be one of dissappointment if it actually turned out that Bessler's wheel was driven by a free, albeit ingeniously harnessed, environmental energy source. I tend to weigh that small dissappointment up against the possibility of chasing undefined ideas forever. All talking aside, only a demonstration will settle the matter one way or the other. First past the post wins :)

[rmd3]

[edit - stated the obvious]

We know that: If a single weight moved in a closed path of the conservative field of gravity gives a net gain of zero energy. There's no debate about that according to the physics.

Assuming we have two weights in two closed paths around a point (like the axle of a wheel, say), and each weight has a distinctly different path, let's take the difference in energy between the two wieghts as they travel around their paths.

If we assume the weights start and complete their paths at the same time, but the weights are sync'ed such that they delay or move position at certain times relative to each other, there could be a net difference in their energies as they both complete their path. So while each individually netted no gain in energy, their difference did.

Doesn't that seem to make sense?

I don't think it would hold true if there were no delays or shifts in position because you can see pretty clearly that the net difference would be 0 energy.

-Randall

[arthur]

OK here goes...

--------you can swing a sledge hammer and apply a larger force to the nail than the force you put into the lift/swing.
(given you lifted the hammer from the same height as the nail).

this is true!!!!!!

Let's think about this.
transfer a weight's horizontal velocity into a vertical velocity.
the weight will lose force if horizontal velocity is transferred upwards,
...or gain force if horizontal velocity is transferred downwards.

>this extra force gained when a weight changes direction of velocity from horizontal to downward
is independent of the force it gains from the drop in the curve used to change it's horizontal direction.


for example,
--weight (z) is on the rim of a wheel at 12:00 traveling clockwise at the speed (x).
this horizontal velocity will automatically transfer into downward vertical velocity at 3:00.

The force of an impact of weight (z) at 3:00
= the sum of:
[the force of weight (z) traveling at speed (x) downward
+
the force weight (z) would obtain after simply dropping the distance of the radius of the wheel.]

SO, this force of weight (z)'s impact at 3:00 - (force applied to the nail)
is greater than:
[the force required to lift weight (z) the distance of the radius of the wheel (distance it dropped)
+
the force required to bring weight (z) horizontally to speed (x).]
= (force put into the lift/swing)

the difference here between:
the force put into the lift/swing -
vs.
- the force applied to the nail
is the same as the difference between:

the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) horizontally -
vs.
- the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) downwards.

- the force of weight (z) moving moving at speed (x) downwards - (force applied to the nail)
... is clearly greater.
thank you gravity!!!


......I was never taught this in physics class but it is common sense
energy is free

[ovyyus]

Ug

[arthur]

congratulation's if you understand what I am talking about.

This logic is very simple yet perhaps difficult to communicate.

It does prove that gravity is capable of doing work.

It is beyond my comrehension how 'government owned science' can mind-control everyone into ignoring this.

[jim_mich]

the force weight (z) would obtain after simply dropping the distance of the radius of the wheel.

the force required to lift weight (z) the distance of the radius of the wheel (distance it dropped)

There would be no difference between these two forces. Why do you think there is a difference?




Or maybe I just don't understand the point you're trying to make? Your math statements seem to contradict themselves.

[arthur]

You're right Jim,
there is no difference between these two forces:

---the force weight (z) would obtain after simply dropping the distance of the radius of the wheel.
---the force required to lift weight (z) the distance of the radius of the wheel (distance it dropped)

.......There is however a difference between these two forces:

---FORCE A) the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) horizontally
---FORCE B) the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) downwards

It requires the same energy input to 'achieve' FORCE A
that is required to 'achieve' FORCE B.

Even though force B is greater than force A.

hence my statement:
transfer a weight's horizontal velocity into a downward/vertical velocity, and the weight gains extra force.

In other words a sledge hammer indeed can apply a greater force to the nail than the force used to lift/swing the hammer from the same height as the nail.

that would be the point I'm trying to make.

[jim_mich]

---the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) horizontally
---the force of weight (z) moving at speed (x) downwards

I assume these don't include any weight force from gravity?
The only difference is in direction, not in the force.

I don't see any difference between these two forces that you're refering to.