67,000 mph ... wheeeeeeeeeee!

[greendoor]

The gravitational pull between the Earth and Sun causes the Earth to orbit the Sun at a velocity of 29.8 km/sec. At the same time, the Earth also rotates on its axis causing the daily cycle of day and night. This "rotational velocity" is approximately 0.47 km/sec.

This means that at the same time we're hurdling through space at nearly 67,000 mph, we're also spinning at over 1000 mph! Whew! Almost makes you dizzy, doesn't it?

So what?

Well think about Foucault's pendulum for a minute...

When a pendulum is swinging - somehow it "forgets" that it's on earth, spinning at 1000 mph ... it swings back & forth in it's own private universe ... only to find that the earth rotates underneath it.

That amazes me. Is there something inherent in rotary motion that somehow "decouples" a mass from the inertia frame that it's apparantly in? With reference to what?

AND ... if it does it for earth's daily rotation ... what about for earths larger annual rotation around the sun ...

IF we conceed that maybe it's possible to extract energy from earth's rotation at 1000 mph (and what do you think tidal energy is) ...

THEN maybe we can extract energy from earths orbit at 67,000 mph ...

It would seem all we have to do is somehow make a mass "forget" what inertia frame it exists in ...

BUT - that would be impossible ...

wouldn't it ....?

[jim_mich]

A mass never "forgets" what inertial frame of reference it is in. It always exists in "Absolute Space" and it is we humans that put mass into individual inertial frames. We do this because mass only exhibits inertia when it changes velocity and direction. But when there is no other mass around how does the mass know that it is changing velocity or direction? Mass is constructed from a standing wave pattern in the background zero-point ether-energy that is the source of all matter and energy. When mass changes direction or velocity, the standing wave pattern must change directions relative to this background zero-point ether-energy. This always requires an outside force to change the movement of the mass. And the mass reciprocates by returning an equal but opposite inertial force.

So how do we extract mechanical kinetic energy from this zero-point ether-energy? A faster moving weight has much more energy available than a slower moving weight. Energy input and output is always relative to the difference between the two frames of reference; one is usually considered stationary and the other is the object in motion. But the zero-point ether-energy has almost unlimited energy available. It is easy to cause the kinetic energy of a moving mass to dissipate. We even give it the name of entropy and we say that this process is always one direction. A working wheel must do what is thought to be impossible. It must cause ectropy, which is the reverse of entropy. It must cause energy to be concentrated rather than dissipated. This is why (IMO) Bessler said that he used things in pairs. We must take the motion on one moving weight and add it to the motion of a second moving weight. Thus we end up with a mass that gains speed and inertial kinetic energy. This must be done using a number of different inertial frames of reference.

Reference frame ONE is the wheel relative to the stationary world that you want to pump energy into. Reference frame TWO is a first weight relative to the wheel. Reference frame THREE is a second weight relative to the wheel. Reference frame FOUR is one weight relative to the other weight through the inter-connection that Bessler mentions. Inertial energy gets passed back and forth between these inertial reference frames. Kinetic energy plays musical chairs and each time the swinging/moving of the weights stops there is more energy than chairs.

Of course much of this is only conjecture until proven as fact. Science says it can't be done, so they don't even try.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Jim, I can't help but mess with this from time to time. You have made it a bit of an interest to me, although I know I'm not as up to snuff on it as you are. You have a plan, it seems....I have to get just an understanding of this yet. The tests are very simplistic (K.I.S.S.) to try and maintain reality within the program and I am just looking for a reaction and not a running wheel.

So, in trying to apply what you are saying (there can be many variations), timing is going to be pretty important at certain points of rotation as far as applying the most force at the right time and then when it has expended this force, to release itself, so to speak, and become almost weightless (this might not be what you are doing), at just the right time of ascention as the next pairs are applying themselves on the other side. In one set up that I have been using it almost seems that if I can get the one weight to swing in at the right time, it would apply itself in a positive manner to it's pair and actually provide input to the wheel on the ascending side.

I'm also thinking that if they are working in pairs, one approach as far as connectedness goes.....one of the weights is falling and at some point, the rope/cord/chain tightens and the second weight is "jerked" downward until it hits a stop thus imparting some KE. This then starts the first weight to swinging (chaotically). On the other side is our second pair....the first weight in this pair is now hanging downward and swinging....so, if we can synchronize the swinging of these two first weights in such a way that while the one that is on the decending side swings in such a way that it is still applying itself positively to the wheel...it is also causing the other first weight to swing inward and already start applying its force to moving the second weight towards the stop and then it crosses the 12 position and they drive back down on the stop. And this just repeats itself....

OK, am I even in the ballpark of what might be happening if we were to try and use CF? On it's own it won't even make 3/4 of a revolution, but I add some torque and set it at a certain advantageous, totally bogus starting position to force the effect I am looking for, and I can see how this could happen....I have no idea how it could ever be controlled. The faster it goes....everything changes.


Steve

[Gregory]

OK, am I even in the ballpark of what might be happening if we were to try and use CF? On it's own it won't even make 3/4 of a revolution, but I add some torque and set it at a certain advantageous, totally bogus starting position to force the effect I am looking for, and I can see how this could happen....I have no idea how it could ever be controlled. The faster it goes....everything changes.

Steve,

I can present my way of thinking, and it may or may not help.
For first, it can be useful to separate gravity effects from CF effects, so you will have weights only react to CF, but do not react to gravity (i.e. balanced from gravity point of view).

This can be most easily done by using two pairs of weights(a pair of pairs) free to swing around their pivots on the opposite sides of the wheel, and connected by a cross pulley or any other method to balance in gravity. In this case they will work similar to a normal pendulum in gravity, but instead of gravity they will swing on CF force when the wheel rotates.

As for swinging weights, they have a big advantage compared to radially movable ones, which once travelled to an outward radius cannot return back by themselves, only by pushing them inside by a force (i.e putting in energy). However, swinging weights can return to the position where they started (minus losses), just like a usual pendulum oscillates from right to left, left to right...

Just my basic thoughts... Am I helped?

[daxwc]

This might help explain things;

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae695.cfm

We might be doing the earth much more harm the hydrocarbon release by harnessing rotational energy off the earth. I was amazed when I read some where that if all human energy needs were taken off the earth's rotation that this energy source would last only 150 years.

[Michael]

When a pendulum is swinging - somehow it "forgets" that it's on earth, spinning at 1000 mph ... it swings back & forth in it's own private universe ... only to find that the earth rotates underneath it.

That amazes me. Is there something inherent in rotary motion that somehow "decouples" a mass from the inertia frame that it's apparantly in? With reference to what?

Greendoor I'm trying to understand what you really mean when you wrote these two sentences. To be blunt the sentences look to condradict each other, and it looks like you are pointing out a potential paradox when there really isn't one. Looking at the first sentence it isn't really any different than you being able to move around in a car that isn't accelerating, just like if you were on solid ground, or an airplane, train, or elevator. If you jumped forward while on a train and when in the air the train began to make a turn (( the train could also already be turning but I'm trying to keep the example simple )), you would still be traveling at the same vector ie; velocity and direction, that you did when you first jumped despite the train now having a different vector relative to you from when you first jumped. It's the exact same thing as the pendulum, it's the 360 degree single rotational point that allows for this. No magic here, it's all just inertia.

[Dave Chippy]

The gravitational pull between the Earth and Sun causes the Earth to orbit the Sun at a velocity of 29.8 km/sec. At the same time, the Earth also rotates on its axis causing the daily cycle of day and night. This "rotational velocity" is approximately 0.47 km/sec.

This means that at the same time we're hurdling through space at nearly 67,000 mph, we're also spinning at over 1000 mph! Whew! Almost makes you dizzy, doesn't it?

The solar system is moving through the galaxy at 250 km/s or 559 234.073 01 miles/ hour now that makes you dizzy, also our galaxy is moving away from other galaxies at close to the speed of light which is 671 080 887.62 mile/hour now that's fast but like Albert said it's all relative.

[jim_mich]

When a pendulum is swinging - somehow it "forgets" that it's on earth, spinning at 1000 mph ... it swings back & forth in it's own private universe ... only to find that the earth rotates underneath it.

That amazes me. Is there something inherent in rotary motion that somehow "decouples" a mass from the inertia frame that it's apparantly in? With reference to what?

To be blunt the sentences look to condradict each other, and it looks like you are pointing out a potential paradox when there really isn't one.

Yes, it seems amazing that objects can move/swing relative to absolute space rather than relative to the inertial frame of reference such as the Earth or a wheel. And, no, there is no paradox here once you understand what is happening.

Gregory, you are very perceptive.

[Gregory]

Thanks Jim,

I try my best to solve this mystery. I want to find out whether it is possible or not to build a working wheel, and 2012 is coming... If it is for real, it should be reinvented for the date.

I find it interesting that we went on similar tracks in the search without consulting in detail. Let's hope this is the correct path.

[Fletcher]

Besides there being no report of an outdoors test it also bothers me that there doesn't seem to be any information about the axis alignment of B's wheels - were they always aligned the same way e.g east-west or north-south etc which could give some useful information if it were relevant [as in greendoors suggestion] - without that information & from the drawings & reports it appears the wheels were aligned any way that fitted in the room conveniently - what I mean is, if for instance in the test that 'sgravesande saw the wheel was not parallel to some wall you would expect someone to notice that & make a comment, but there is none that I can remember, so I conclude they were aligned anyway that was convenient for the space & the audiences easy side on viewing pleasure.

Then there is the anecdotal evidence about pendulum behaviour in an eclipse & why that might happen - not something I've spent any time or research on though in relation to greedoors questions.

[Michael]

For the record Greendoor/Jim, Jim's absolute space isn't what I meant, but to each his own.

[ovyyus]

Yes, it seems amazing that objects can move/swing relative to absolute space...

Jim, what is 'absolute space'?

[jim_mich]

The phrase "absolute space" was coined by Newton. See http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ucket.html

When an object spins thus producing CF then the object must spin relative to something else how does the object know how much CF to produce. CF is relative to the change of velocity between the object and absolute space. It is my opinion that this is one of the stronger arguments for zero-point ether-energy.

[ovyyus]

Jim, a spinning object is composed of discrete material parts (atoms) which are forced to continually change direction relative to other discrete material parts (atoms) in the same object. Matter clearly can not change direction unless it interacts with other matter.

In the case of the spinning object, when parts of that object are spinning relative to other parts of the same spinning object then relative motion is what determines the magnitude of CF (inertia). Therefore, how does the concept of an "absolute space" have any bearing on inertia?

[jim_mich]

In the case of the spinning object, when parts of that object are spinning relative to other parts of the same spinning object then relative motion is what determines the magnitude of CF (inertia). Therefore, how does the concept of an "absolute space" have any bearing on inertia?

Relative to what? Certainly not relative to each other! The magnitude of CF (inertia) is determine by the magnitude of the change of direction relative to absolute space.

If you were in an enclosed windowless capsule in outer space you would know if you were spinning or not because you would experience CF or not experience CF near the outer rim of the capsule. From this force near the rim you would be able to determine how fast you are spinning relative to ... what? Relative to absolute space!