The Clockwork approach

[Bessler007]

Hello Gregory,

Oh, no! There is something in their connection, which would cause them to fall faster!
And this is Newton's law of universal gravitation.

You are indeed correct. You got me there. :0

The attraction between the earth with a mass of 6.0 x 10^24 kg and five equal masses either connected or not has such a slight change as to be practically nonexistent.

Greater amount of masses has greater amount of inertia (resistance for acceleration), so it compensates for the gravitational acceleration, and this is why all the material objects MUST fall with the exact same rate and speed.

This isn't the case. As the mass increases that force of gravitational attraction increases also. The greater the force of attraction the higher the velocity. The crux of the matter is the comparative value of the 'dropping' mass to the earth's mass.

The difference between one ton or two compared to the earth's mass is of little difference. Two tons will fall faster over the same vertical drop but you could never measure it.

Your CoG winding graph looks cool. It's a pity that the cog drops after, and the wave height becomes greater... Doesn't it stop? (that would be interesting)

It stopped when the simulation ran out of steps. The first part of the graph (900 seconds) the cog is trending upward. Both the upper and lower extremes are moving up and hence the average is also. That's beyond scientific explanation. Only in simulation is this possible. :)

In the last part of the graph the average level is horizontal. None the less the extremes are expanding away from that average. If that were all this pendulum could do you would need to make use of latches to hold the mass at a higher potential energy level.

The slanted lines on the cog tracking correspond to the rapid vertical spikes on the graph.

[Gregory]

You must admit, that to a layman such as myself, this is hard to grasp even though it is a proven fact!

Please disregard air resistance:
I have a 10" solid steel ball weighing say 100 pounds. Another 10" hollow ball that weighs 1.5 pounds. It is hard to comprehend that they both fall at the same speed and rate of acceleration. There physical mass is identical, their density of mass is quite different.

To my thinking, that which nullifies the obvious gradient between the two is the force of gravity itself. So I presume that something dropped at sea level will accelerate faster than something drop from say the summit of Mount Everest?

Yes, I admit it can be hard to grasp. I only mentioned this thing through the way I did, because I think it is important to understand if we really want a working wheel.

Yes, air resistance have to be disregarded, like was in the case of that experiment with the hammer and the feather on the Moon's surface.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lu ... _drop.html

Checking your example... We have two balls the same size, same density, but one is hollow... They are the same in volume, they occupy the same amount of space, but the hollow one contains less material, so it is less in mass. From this the more is obvious...

The hollow one has less mass, so it weights less inside the Earth's gravity field, so the attraction between this hollow ball and the Earth will be weaker, than in the case of the other ball. The same things are true for their inertial properties... greater the mass - greater the inertial resistance. Therefore they fall with the same rate. That is their inertial property (or more precisely the connection between the gravitational & inertial property of a given body of mass) which makes different masses to fall with the same rate, not gravity.

If there where no inertial property of the mass, then different amount of masses would accelerate differently dependent on their mass, because there would be nothing to compensate the gravitational attraction force... The planets all would soon fall into the Sun, at least... but more likely the whole Universe would collapse into a singularity soon or later...

So, I just try to say that inertia is a good thing, and in the language & workings of our Universe, it has the same importance as gravity has.

It must be seen I am not talking about CF, or momentum, etc... But I have gone down to the roots of my theory & "research", and I found their source & originator to be an important property which cannot be separated from the matter & mass itself. (just like gravity cannot be)

I found it interesting...

[DrWhat]

So for me to to put it in layman terms Gregory (so I can picture it better), you are saying that gravity, and 'resistance to acceleration' of a falling object are inversely correlated.

The larger the mass the slower it accelerates (down) but the pull from gravity is stronger. The lighter the object the faster it accelerates (down) but the gravitational pull on it is weaker. Both then fall at the same rate (I know, no air resistance!).

[Gregory]

Yes...

Not just I am saying, but much greater people said it before.
Damn! I just began to understand it better months ago... (when I worked on my theories)

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Snewton.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-inertia.html

[DrWhat]

Sometimes we can know theories and equations known from way back, but (speaking for myself) we fail to really visualise them, and this helps our research.

[Fletcher]

Gravity is a field [gradient of potential] - it is not energy !

That's because when we want to accelerate two side by side bodies [of different mass] horizontal to the gravity field we have to use more & more energy on the larger mass to get the same acceleration rate for both of them - energy is a quanta [packet], an amount of something, & when applied to a body to cause it to change its state of motion we can then calculate the work done by knowing how much energy we applied.

While on the face of it, Greg's comparison between acceleration due to gravity being equally opposed by a bodies inertia [resistance to change in motion] leading to a standard acceleration [vertically] in a gravity field for all objects regardless of their mass, seems logical, it does not imo address the one glaring anomaly in the argument.

That is, how is the force applied to the mass, to cause a standard acceleration due gravity, able to instantaneously compensate by increasing or decreasing its magnitude depending on the mass of the body - answer - it is not a force or energy packet, in the usual way we understand it, but a compensating field of potential.

We have to get away from thinking about gravity as energy - it can cause an object to change its inherent energy state from Potential to Kinetic but it cannot add to it - it is a catalyst & like in chemistry a catalyst facilitates a reaction, it does not add energy to the equation.

[Bessler007]

When you plug in the mass of the moon at 7.383 x 10^22 kilos and the mass of that feather of 0.03 kilos the gravitational force doesn't change much compared to the hammer.

The change in attraction is so slight it appears to the unaided eye the hammer with 44 times the mass falls at an equal rate.

If there is any validity in the equation then it is knowable the gravitational attraction is greater between the moon and the hammer than it is with the feather. If there's more force the velocities are greater.

We just can't notice such slight change with the unaided eye. I don't think we even have an aid for the eye that would notice the difference. It's so slight. The only way to know the force of attraction is greater and hence the velocity is to calculate it.

...lots of orders of magnitude.

[Bessler007]

Hello Gregory,

Why do you think this understanding is important to making a working wheel? I'm not sure I see why it matters.

....
I only mentioned this thing through the way I did, because I think it is important to understand if we really want a working wheel.....

[P-Motion]

Steve,
With 2 10 lb. weights 27" from center and if one extends to 30",
The drop to when the overhead ramp controls one weight would be 21.21" and 2.5 lbs. of force would cause acceleration at about 3feet/second.
The spin velocity 30" from center would be about 1.6meter/second.
The ramp dropping from a height 14.14" to the right and down would allow for the weight to move at about 8m/s. This would be becasue the height to width ratio would be about 2.5:1. This would allow for accelrating at about 1/4 of 32f/s^2.
This would allow for acceleration to occur until the weight is retracted (bottom of ramp woudl be 17" below the axis ) which then the velocity would be about 2m/s.
Not sure how long 25lbs, would spin at that velocity.
In an earlier post I said the ramp was 7.07" down to start, it would be pretty flat there. Turns out the lower the ramp is the more drop it allows for. But those would be the approximate numbers. And round weights would need to be used for the obvious reason round things like to roll, less friction in moving outward.
Simple way to view the overhead ramp is the weight is 10" beyond it.
At 45 degrees to the axis, 20" is 14.14" below the plane of the axis. Plus the 10" distance to the weight - 30".
And 17" below the axis (end of ramp) plus 10" distance to the weight equals 27", the retracted lenght. That's about everything. Weights would be round and on a 5 degree incline, if a slot, then the bottom would be a slight downward angle.
Or if the overhead ramp were 7" below the axis and went 7" to the right, the weight would extend 14" further out to the right )20"x .707).
This would mean at about 167 degrees, the weight would be under its' axis. Not sure if more force would be generated that way. It'd need to be tested. Of coursre, it would be possible to try different ramp positions, etc., but for a start.
It would probably take someone laying it out and using a rod or something to get an idea of how it might work.
Hope you don't mind but am kind of burned by doing so much thinking on this the last couple of months. Time for a break. But this would give anyone interested in how Bessler might have done it time to consider it and become familiar with it.
Hope all goes well for you Steve.
Jim

Hey P-M....I am not sure just how much you are willing to divulge as far as the math concerned. My questions as far as that aspect goes.....

As this arrangement accelerates, there are going to be reaction forces (unless I really don't get it) to contend with....and from my basic knowledge, these will not be directly proportional. Can you give us a little math lesson on how trig can deal with this?

Have you already worked out the functions for a specific size of wheel and if so could you show us the math, how the trig works to determine the expected performance of the wheel? I mean like acceleration rate....max. rpm's....max. torque?

Very, very rusty on my trig....haven't used that since apprentice class in about 1980-81! I could really use the math lesson, P-M....help me see it...I want to learn!


Steve

P.S. are you sure you and ANT aren't working together....I really see some similarities in the concepts....

[winkle]

Fletcher wrote

We have to get away from thinking about gravity as energy - it can cause an object to change its inherent energy state from Potential to Kinetic but it cannot add to it - it is a catalyst & like in chemistry a catalyst facilitates a reaction, it does not add energy to the equation.

a little puzzled in the above train of thought
would that hold true in a working gravity wheel
if it does hold true where would the energy come from for the wheel to make a complete revolution and then gain speed
not to mention the energy source if the wheel were actually to do some work
what can the added energy source be gut gravity

[DrWhat]

Winkle, I've got a little bit of "gut" [sic] gravity, so it must exist... lol

[Gregory]

Gravity is a field [gradient of potential] - it is not energy!

We have to get away from thinking about gravity as energy - it can cause an object to change its inherent energy state from Potential to Kinetic but it cannot add to it - it is a catalyst & like in chemistry a catalyst facilitates a reaction, it does not add energy to the equation.

This is true, and holds true even for an imaginary working wheel. However it is ironic, that a working wheel most likely needs gravity in order to work. Gravity just do the same as it does all the time... cause bodies to fall down.

But how can they rise up again?
Gravity can't lift them up... The method to cause the weights to rise up again and reset the OOB condition is the real key for a working wheel.

It looks like we have to find a force or something which is available everywhere and can be used to do useful work for lifting weights. And if this is possible in any way, the method & force used would be the true source for energy input.

For example, the weights can be raised up by using electromagnets and iron. And at the end the device working through this way would be a strange kind of electromagnetic motor, where the torque for the rotor is provided by gravity, however the electromagnets are the real source of the energy as they are the components which do the work, and can periodically lift those weights.

[Gregory]

We just can't notice such slight change with the unaided eye. I don't think we even have an aid for the eye that would notice the difference. It's so slight. The only way to know the force of attraction is greater and hence the velocity is to calculate it.

Perhaps my understanding is still incorrect, and this is why I don't get it...

Yes, it can be calculated that the attraction is different; and it is really different. But there is a far better way to sense it. One just have to play with different weights & dumbbells to feel it through his own body.

A bigger weight of the same material is heavier than a smaller one. Thus it is harder to lift with your muscles. Also, it weights more on a weighing device.

For me this clearly proves that the attraction force is stronger with greater masses. Otherwise why would we feel it heavier, and why are we measure a greater value on the weighing device?

I can see no other reason... Please explain, and correct me if I am wrong, but these things clearly show how the attraction force is different with different masses. (In this sense gravity works similar to magnetism.)

Otherwise, what is the thing which cause a bigger weight to weight more than a smaller one? (if the difference in attraction is so small)

[Gregory]

Hello Gregory,

Why do you think this understanding is important to making a working wheel? I'm not sure I see why it matters.

Hello Bessler007,

I think it is important, because it is a very basic thing, and always in action in most of the experiments one way or the other. I think it can open new ways for thoughts, and allow people to look for other ways and try other experiments.

Personally, I figured out more new gadgets and theories while thinking about the matter in detail.

It is no secret that I am working on a strange device, a "clockwork" which is designed to try to make use of inertia, without loosing momentum, and extract force for lifting weights.

[P-Motion]

Gregory,
This is basically Super-String Theory your discussing.
I think what you've missed is that a gas will defy gravity because of its' spin.
This would be gravity directly affecting it on the elemental level.
When you are discussing a brick, a bucket of water or an iron rod, gravity would be affecting them on a different level.
And this has nothing to do with perpetual motion. If an increase in velocity of .01 m/s would keep something from working, it would need to be an atom.
In actuallity, it would be considering how to apply the laws of physics to an engineering standard that would help. You know, what would the basic rules be ?
And with what you've been discussing, the most important part probably would be that gravity accelerates at 32f/s. This means that in a closed system like a perpetual wheel, what eevr the acceleeration is for the 1st second, the rate of increase will be the same.
An example of this is if a wheel accelerates at 2 f/s, then the next second its' velocity would be 4 f/s, the 3rd second it would be 6 f/s.
This would be how torque is generated. The over-balanced weight leverages a body. When that body rotates / spins as a result, torque will be converted to momentum.


Jim

We just can't notice such slight change with the unaided eye. I don't think we even have an aid for the eye that would notice the difference. It's so slight. The only way to know the force of attraction is greater and hence the velocity is to calculate it.

Perhaps my understanding is still incorrect, and this is why I don't get it...

Yes, it can be calculated that the attraction is different; and it is really different. But there is a far better way to sense it. One just have to play with different weights & dumbbells to feel it through his own body.

A bigger weight of the same material is heavier than a smaller one. Thus it is harder to lift with your muscles. Also, it weights more on a weighing device.

For me this clearly proves that the attraction force is stronger with greater masses. Otherwise why would we feel it heavier, and why are we measure a greater value on the weighing device?

I can see no other reason... Please explain, and correct me if I am wrong, but these things clearly show how the attraction force is different with different masses. (In this sense gravity works similar to magnetism.)

Otherwise, what is the thing which cause a bigger weight to weight more than a smaller one? (if the difference in attraction is so small)