Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[arthur]

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

there is clearly a difference in these two forces.

FORCE B) is greater due to gravity.

A weight traveling horizontally at speed (x) is less powerful than if it were traveling downwards/vertically at speed (x).

this is why I'd say that gravity does work.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Arthur,
you are right, forces are different. you can make movements with or against gravity. An acceleration against gravity needs more force than an acceleration with gravity. In some cases you can't accelerate against gravity because the mass is to big.


the future has begun

Georg

[Bessler007]

Arthur,

It takes less power to slowlyraise the sledge off the head of the nail bringing it's mass to a higher potential energy level than is exerted on the head of the nail as it swings back to where it came from.

Energy isn't a function of feeling. It's a precise mathematical equation. If you don't add any energy to the sledge, energy remains constant. Power is the variable in that pendulum you're describing.

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.

[Bessler007]

hello Georg,

If you have enough time you can take a bite out of a large mass and spit it up to a higher level. Then you can take another bite and repeat the process.

I think a component of Jim's idea of finding a gradient is time. If you can manage time you can create a gradient. If you create a gravity induced gradient you will have created energy. I think the principle is that simple.

Accomplishing the task is another matter.

The future has been around a long time. We just haven't gotten to it yet.

Hi Arthur,
you are right, forces are different. you can make movements with or against gravity. An acceleration against gravity needs more force than an acceleration with gravity. In some cases you can't accelerate against gravity because the mass is to big.


the future has begun

Georg

[arthur]

forget the sledgehammer analogy.

just consider this:

---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.

>transfer a weight's horizontal velocity into a downward/vertical velocity, and the weight gains extra force.


..................this might be more clearly represented by-
moving a weight on wheel from 9:00 to 12:00, give it a little extra push at 12:00.

this weight WILL have more force at 3:00 than the total force that you used to move it there from 9:00.

[Bessler007]

I agree with Bill.

A true gravity driven wheel would have been, still would be, the greatest discovery imaginable. It would arguably change everything we know about physics.

I thought Karl had certain agreements with Bessler that prevented him from doing much with the ideas Bessler had. Karl's accepted role in Bessler's ideas were to fund and promote them. Bessler never gave Karl the right to do any more.

This is an excellent question.

...centuries of experiments all support the currently held view that gravity acts as a conservative force.

If anyone could manage to keep an arrangement of mass perpetually out of balance in a given direction of rotation they would change the philosophy of physics. Equally amazing to finding this gravity induced energy would be:

How could all those brilliant eggheads for such a long time be so wrong?

Arthur,
I would need a picture.

The future has been canceled. Everyone get back to the past.

[10x]

Hmm any one look into pendulum torque?

At a 60 degree start point it can put enough torque on the arm to lift more that its weight.

Reason simply is the energy of the motion. Kinetic verses potential energy.

Now the question is: since such can be used and this creates a chaotic swing on the pendulum; how much energy to keep the pendulum going to the work that can be done? Not a simple task to solve such.

Just a point on this : the timing of imparting energy to the pendulum for carry through is not as simple as stationary set swing pendulum.

[arthur]

ok, I have to say this.
Gravity is not the "conservative" force that we have been led to believe.

Gravity can change/affect the force of a moving weight in 2 different ways.

1) Gravity can enhance the force of a moving weight,
2) Gravity can also detract from the force of a moving weight.

Lets look at three different ways a weight can move.

A) horizontal
B) (vertical) up
C) (vertical) down

A) The force of a weight moving horizontally is not affected by gravity.
B) The force of a weight moving (vertically) up is weakened by gravity.
C) The force of a weight moving (vertically) down is strengthened by gravity.

people say that: gravity is a "conservative" force.
some claim that: a falling weight can attain no more energy than is used to lift it.

Is that always true?
NO!

THINK ABOUT THIS>

A weight is attached to a wheel at 9:00.
We will use force (ENERGY INPUT) - to make this weight travel clockwise from 9:00 to 3:00 where it will strike with force downwards like a hammer - (ENERGY OUTPUT).

The point I will try to make here is that:
It is possible for the weight to strike 3:00 with more force than was used to move this weight to 3:00 from 9:00.
This means that ENERGY OUTPUT can be greater than ENERGY INPUT.

...meaning that a falling weight can indeed attain more force than was used to lift it.
....meaning that gravity is not so conservative, after all.

So, let me explain 2 scenarios:
we will calculate ENERGY INPUT vs. ENERGY OUTPUT regarding a weight's movement between positions 9:00 and 3:00 on the wheel.

scenario #1)
ENERGY INPUT: We will use force (x) to lift/rotate a weight from 9:00 to 12:00.
We will now let this weight fall from 12:00 to 3:00.
ENERGY OUTPUT: It will land at 3:00 with force (x)
ENERGY INPUT = ENERGY OUTPUT
----no gain there.

However, scenario 2 is different.

scenario #2)
Okay lets do the same thing as scenario #1 ... but this time ....
.....we will give the weight a good clockwise push with force (y) at 12:00.

ENERGY INPUT: We have just used forces (x) +plus (y) to move the weight from 9:00 to 3:00.
ENERGY OUTPUT: Now this weight will land at 3:00 with the force of (x) +plus (y)

ENERGY OUTPUT is now greater.
WHY?, because:

---ENERGY INPUT: force (y) was applied horizontally at 12:00, therefore force (y) is not affected by gravity
---ENERGY OUTPUT: force (y) is now applied vertically (down) at 3:00, therefore force (y) is now strengthened by gravity.

In simpler words, when you push a weight (on a wheel) clockwise at 12:00, the horizontal force you use to push this weight at 12:00 is transferred to the weight's position at 3:00,
only now it is strengthened by gravity because it's force is applied downwards rather than horizontal.

So now we know that a falling weight can indeed attain more force than was used to lift it.

.....ALL because the force of a weight (w) with a downward velocity (v) is greater than the force of weight (w) with horizontal velocity (v).

neither of these scenario's are a closed path but scenario #2 clearly shows a difference between input vs. output for lifting a weight the same distance that it falls.

[daxwc]

Bessler said:

Here it is full, there it is empty;
A thing exists of three empires;
Without sulphur, salt, Merkurius
Soon a thing must pass.

Of the elements qualities
Also to every thing are needed.
Saturn, Mars, Jupiter looks nice
In all wars they are willing

.


Triangle = Triad operating in all things, to the 3 Supernal Sephiroth, and to Binah the 3rd Sephirah. Among the Planets it is especially referred to Saturn; and among the Elements to Fire. As the colour of Saturn is black and the Triangle that of Fire, the Black Triangle will represent Saturn, and the Red Fire.
The 3 Angles also symbolize the 3 Aichemical Principles of Nature, Mercury, Sulphur, and Salt.



Mars = pentangle, Jupiter = square, saturn = triangle

IMO thats what Bessler wishes you to believe is that it is a geometry statement. BUT it could be an ancient alchemy reference. Where Mars = Iron, jupiter = tin, saturn = lead.

I believe that Saturn was also used for lead acetate "Sugar of Lead". What if Bessler was powering his wheel through a slight Exergonic reaction? What if the lead weights were hollow then packed with reactive chemical and the impact in the wheel was causing a slight release of energy every time? In some of my calculations, to accelerate the wheel could have been as small of 10 joules of energy needed.

The statement "Without sulphur, salt, Merkurius Soon a thing must pass." is also an reference to Alchemistry. All these substances could have been used in a controlled chemical reaction of Mercury Fulminate, Saltpeter, Plumbum Dulce, Lead nitrate, Silver Fulinating, Aurum Fulminating or some other to slowly power the wheel through impact.

Surely, nobody thinks this would violate any laws? Not sure it could run for months though.

[10x]

I do not know how to reply to some of what I read here.

[10x]

some claim that: a falling weight can attain no more energy than is used to lift it.

good luck.

[Bessler007]

Bizarre, daxwc. I'll have to look at that a little more.

Hello Arthur,

.....we will give the weight a good clockwise push with force (y) at 12:00.

ENERGY INPUT: We have just used forces (x) +plus (y) to move the weight from 9:00 to 3:00.
ENERGY OUTPUT: Now this weight will land at 3:00 with the force of (x) +plus (y)

ENERGY OUTPUT is now greater.
WHY?, because:

The why is because you added energy by pushing the mass and increased velocity which is a component of energy.

Two masses can have different energy curves as they move from one level to the next if one of them comes to the equation with the velocity gained from 'a good clockwise push'.

You can't compare the energy of a mass that just drops to a mass that's pushed at the beginning of a drop and explain there's more energy. No fair pushing.

[Fletcher]

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 disappointment 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 disappointment 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 :)

I'd be a little disappointed too [boring & mundane as sifting thru the current laws & natural phenomena may appear to be] but ATEOTD I'm interested in a minimum of duplicating Bessler's wheel performance, using mechanical methods - I'll take it any way I or anyone can find it !

Care to expand on the above bolded portion of your statement Bill ?

[jim_mich]

I'm interested in a minimum of duplicating Bessler's wheel performance, using mechanical methods - I'll take it any way I or anyone can find it !

Me too! One thing that Bessler told his detractors was for them to make a wheel (wind-up or otherwise) that could perform as his did (using 18th century mechanical technology). Try designing such a wheel. I've tried and it can't be done.

[Fletcher]

:) I once gave it a bit of thought i.e. how it might have been faked [or at least not operated as he had said], but I put it into the too hard basket & continued to look for Bessler's secret - isn't that ironic.