"Energy cannot be created"?

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

Thank you for your response.

I do not consider gravity as energy, but rather a form as implied, that is capable of transferring energy.

With that said, I feel it best to walk away from this thread! It is a loss of time for me when I should be in the shop. I leave it to the philosopher's that be to put the subject to use in a wheel.

I will however make on last trivia statement. The earth is growing in mass which implies that the force of gravity should be increasing. Yet the scientific world seems to think it is diminishing?????

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Fine with me Ralph - I think many of us are fairly set in our ways & thoughts anyway & are unlikely to change our world view over night - what we think now probably has served us reasonably well in making some sort of sense of the physical world we live in up till now & discussing the fine print isn't going to change that - ces't la vie.

Onwards & upwards - tallyho !

[Bessler007]

Hello Fletcher,

Are you saying your application is the opposite or counter to present understanding of aerodynamics?

That's intriguing if you are.

.... suffice to say that although the theory is based on AL it is not an obvious application of it & based on what we know of aerodynamics IMO is counter-intuitive - ...

[DrWhat]

It would be exciting if in the pursuit of a working Bessler Wheel we make other amazing discoveries on the way.

Even if the test of a wheel fails it may be worthwhile thinking of other applications for the design. For example: a new form of motor configuration or a pump etc. Maybe my failures may lead to other inventions.

[Fletcher]

Intuition is a hunch you get, drawn from your subconscious, based on all your prior learning & understanding - an insight that goes straight to direct knowledge without rational thought or drawing of conclusions from evidence, yet still contained within the scope of your learning.

Not at all, the way I wish to apply it is just not ordinary, in the modern day sense & familiarity - if the effect I'm looking for fails to materialize then I will have been tilting at windmills ;)

[KAS]

Looks like I started something here!

I think it depends on an individuals viewpoint on the properties of acting forces/energies (what ever you like to call it) on a semi-closed system.

I say semi-closed because any mechanical system must be influenced by by gravity weather we like it or not. We just happen to live in a gravity field so unless you build a device in space it can never be ignored.

Gravity is the least understood interacting influence here.
It is said to be a linear influence that cannot be regenerated. Yet it is being regenerated all around us all the time with water mills and hydro-electric dams etc. Nature is capable of regenerating this useful force.

In effect, nature is fooling gravity into giving up its secrets with the perpetual rotation of the earth.

Now thats magic!

This is where I believe we come in. Is it possible to fool gravity into regenerating its usefulness just like a magic trick can fool a human?

Hear me out. Lets face it, we've tried everything. All that is left is divinity and magic. Even Bessler hints at using a magic trick of the day (Jacobs Ladder).

IMO, Fooling gravity into regenerating its influence is the only real area left open to us to explore. It would make perfect sense because we would not be creating energy but utilising existing forces by way of transference. Just as nature does.

Lets hope I am able to prove this theory someday.

Kas

[Clarkie]

Fletcher.

Aint got no education, got slung out of school when I was 15 so I need plain English help with this.

If the prime mover was an interaction between two, spring assisted, moving components that exchanged all of their energy, and the net result was that the heavier weight was at the top. This would over balance the wheel and therefore inverting the mechanism.

The prime mover does not create power, nor does it lose much, only minimal friction. It exchanges the power but in doing so it over balances the wheel.

I know you can’t lift a heavier weight higher than the falling lighter weight unless assisted by springs. The force to re-set the mech will come from gravity, and is applied when the wheel has rotated 180 degrees.

Is it possible that an exchange of energy can cause OU, which in turn, adds enough energy to re-set the exchanging parts?

[bluesgtr44]

I like this, Fletch....

Intuition is a hunch you get, drawn from your subconscious, based on all your prior learning & understanding - an insight that goes straight to direct knowledge without rational thought or drawing of conclusions from evidence, yet still contained within the scope of your learning.

The process of proving/disproving our own ideas and theories builds the basis for this "intuition". I guess I am still at the stage of much more disproving to do....gotta see some of this for myself. Just because others before me didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.....

Hey Kas...

This is where I believe we come in. Is it possible to fool gravity into regenerating its usefulness just like a magic trick can fool a human?

I think maybe gravity cannot be fooled. Now, what if...as you point out....the perpetual rotation of the earth is by design. This is a function of what gravity does....and has always been able to do. Just because we haven't figured out how to tap into it, doesn't mean it has to be fooled....I think that gives us too much credit (we haven't found it yet so it can't possibly exist), and the simplicity of gravity too little acknowledgement.

Hey Clarkie....

If the prime mover was an interaction between two, spring assisted, moving components that exchanged all of their energy, and the net result was that the heavier weight was at the top. This would over balance the wheel and therefore inverting the mechanism.

I highlighted this aspect because....IMHO, the top is not neccesarily the physical top of the wheel....it is the maximum height that the path will allow the weight to achieve. Basically, the machanism may provide a path that rotates within one quadrant of the overall disk. Whatever the epoch of that controlled path....is the top.

I know you can’t lift a heavier weight higher than the falling lighter weight unless assisted by springs. The force to re-set the mech will come from gravity, and is applied when the wheel has rotated 180 degrees.

Why would it have to be 180 degrees? Why not every 45 or 90 degrees? I would think that the reset of the whole assembly would be based on the prime mover....and it is this that needs to be reset. I see no reason why it would have to be 180 degrees.


Steve

[Clarkie]

Steve,
I have chosen my words very carefuly but you are right!!!!

All you have to do now if work out the mech.

Its taken me nearly 10 years.

Pete.

[Fletcher]

If the prime mover was an interaction between two, spring assisted, moving components that exchanged all of their energy, and the net result was that the heavier weight was at the top. This would over balance the wheel and therefore inverting the mechanism.

The prime mover does not create power, nor does it lose much, only minimal friction. It exchanges the power but in doing so it over balances the wheel.

I know you can’t lift a heavier weight higher than the falling lighter weight unless assisted by springs.[/b] The force to re-set the mech will come from gravity, and is applied when the wheel has rotated 180 degrees.

Hi Pete .. this sounds like a similar idea to finding a mechanism [in your case, two spring assisted, moving (dynamic) components] that thru an energy or force transfer will reposition a devices CoG above the pivot i.e. a top heavy device.

I would make a couple of comments about this approach - first off, if the CoG/CoM of the two components are positioned at a certain vertical height [assuming a stationary wheel for the moment] then the combination mech has just so much PE [mgh] - from your proposal, once the components move, then the net result must be that the PE after movement is now above the original PE height & the combination components now have a greater PE [mgh] than they started with - in order for this to occur extra energy must come into the system to top it up - in jim_mich's case he is attempting to use CF's as a function of inertia & acceleration by both gravity & springs.

In your case you mention the use of spring assistance - I can only tell you of my own lessons, learned the hard way, about the use of springs - springs are good for storing energy to be released later as a force - energy can be stored slowly for quick release [i.e. power] at a later time when you think it might be more beneficial to use that energy, typically in shifting something around inside of a wheel - springs are linear & no spring is perfect so there are losses [as you've mentioned] to consider - the problem I found with springs was that to set them so that they could be used later meant that a weight or weighted lever, for example, had to fall in the gravity field to compress a spring - to do this the mass that was causing the setting of the spring had to lower its height so reducing its own PE [mgh] - this created back torque problems in the wheels I built & experiments I did, which exactly negated any benefit I could muster from the thrust the spring could provide later when I needed it - I could not find a way to use springs for anything else other than storage of energy & later release but the penalty of storing that energy [via gravity] was too great & everything zero summed, unfortunately - so IMO springs have a role to play in wheels but they cannot give out more energy than they take to set & therefore can not be used to create OU.

Is it possible that an exchange of energy can cause OU, which in turn, adds enough energy to re-set the exchanging parts?

Yes to the first part of your question - I believe it is possible to exchange energy to cause OU [in the sense of the first law of thermodynamics where energy can be taken from one system & given to another, providing they are not isolated closed systems - that would mean one energy system was permantly depleted of energy & the other had a gain in energy by the same amount but the total energy of the two systems was unchanged - if one system was so large [as to be unnoticed or unconsidered] then it would appear that the other very small system was OU & outputting energy in the form of work done, by some miraculous means.

I can't agree with the second part of the question however - if you have a wheel in a gravity field & you have two mechanical components move within the wheel & one trades its energy to the other [with or without springs], then with absolutely no losses accounted for it would at best zero sum.

I appreciate that you have worked for a very long time on finding a gravity/spring solution so I only offer up my responses to your comments & questions because they were directed specifically at me & say they are my honest opinions about the physics.

Best of luck with the testing !

[jim_mich]

My comments...

Springs are good for two things. The first is as Fletcher say, to store energy then release it later. The second is related and does the same thing, but is used for a different reason. The second is to make a weight move/oscillate faster. When a weight needs to move from point 'A' to point 'B' faster than it normally wants to move, then a spring can give it a boost at the beginning and then the same spring or another spring can recover most of that boost at the end of the move by slowing the weight back down.

[Bessler007]

Springs are quite versatile. As mentioned they can store a force. As Jim mentioned they can be used for timing. The stored force can be used as a latch holding mass to the extremes of its range, an eccentric force.

The stored force in a spring has a lot of uses limited maybe by a person's imagination and reality.

[bluesgtr44]

They can also, with the right set up, apply a constant force against something...even if it is moving...


Steve

[Bessler007]

Physicists have concluded energy is required to create information. If you examine the molecular mechanics of life there is mass in motion or energy. Information doesn't magically appear any more than the universe did. Someone had to expend some energy to order existence.

If the universe is a huge cosmic egg there had to be some cosmic chicken that laid it. Like it or not.

Energy can cause a force in the spring and that in turn can be information. If a well balanced piston with very little room to travel is constructed it can be a sensor. At one end of the travel as its resting on a constraint it can be adding tension to the spring and at the other point of rest it can relieve that tension.

In the dual state of the spring in a complete rotation there is the information of the position of the wheel. That information requires the expenditure of energy.

I think that's one creative use of a spring's capacity to store a force used to compare to some other force creating the information of the position of the wheel. There most likely are more imaginative applications.

[graham]

Springs used in a system for a condition of "Temporary Imbalance" rather than the well worn path of "Overbalance" might be the only way to harness gravity.

By temporary imbalance I'm thinking of a system somewhat like MT18 but with an added element to counteract backtorque.

The reason MT 18 and its ilk fail to run is due to the inherent inertia of the weight being lifted .
You don't even have to lift a weight to have to overcome it's inertia , just moving and accelerating it requires an added force.

So looking at the weight on the ascending side let's suppose that it is displaced 3 inches down as it moves into the 9 0clock area of the wheel.
It will have slowed down some and it's weight will be supported by a spring . The wheel accelerates and energy is now stored in the spring .

As the weight ascends into the fourth quadrant of the wheel the spring will begin to restore the weight 3 inches back to it's home position.
This is where we have a problem because although the spring can lift the weight it cannot eliminate the inertia of the weight and the slowing effect it has on the entire wheel.
Nothing is gained.

So in order to overcome this inertial drag when we raise a weight on the ascending side we have to apply an opposing inertial drag to the descending side.
Now we can't LIFT a weight on the descending side as it would defeat our objective by lightening it , all we have to do is MOVE another weight 3 inches with mostly a horizontal component and couple that inertia vertically to the descending side.

Can it be done? Maybe.

Graham