suprise. no discussion of wessel di wesseli here yet.

[poetpiet]

http://wesseldiwesseli.blogspot.com
this inventor has appeared on mass media in the lowlands as far back as 24 years ago... his contraption is an inversion of Bessler's ideas, using lifts rather than weights.

you can see some sort of a traintrack severel stories deep/high with bellows/harmonicas ingeniously harnassed ... but really it (seems to me this) is not necessary, the air/bubble pressure can be withheld with foldy rubber (hinged maybe) and stuck in hoberman sphere rather than accordeon / trainwagon type models as wessel has it, especially if you lock up the full ones (which he claims is not how he designed it).

[greendoor]

No surprise here. I see nothing remotely credible about this guy's pie-in-the-sky claims. AFAIK the best he can offer is an unproven idea based on buoyancy. These claims annoy me intensely - because for a while I was fooled by the idea of using buoyancy, until I realised how the buoyant force works.

The only reason that an expanded float experiences an upwards force is because there is a heavier fluid surrounding it that is being pulled downwards by gravity. The motive power behind the buoyant force is nothing other than the force of gravity pulling mass downwards - in this case fluid mass.

The huge mistake that buoyancy PM inventors make is in assuming that they can expand an immersed float and somehow not have to lift the equivalent mass of fluid back up. You simply cannot expand the Volume of a float without raising the COG of the fluid. Having raised it, the only energy you can get back out again is the same energy you put into it.

At best, these designs can make use of Tidal or Wave power. That is true gravity free energy - but not what this guy is claiming.

[ovyyus]

At best, these designs can make use of Tidal or Wave power. That is true gravity free energy...

Tides are powered by momentum, not gravity.

[Tarsier79]

The moons momentum affects tides?

[ovyyus]

Tides are powered at the expense of Earth/Moon momentum.

[nicbordeaux]

So you are saying, Bill, that gravity is a product of motion ? That as mass increases with speed, so does gravity ? From which it follows that gravity can be "nullified" by immobilizing the mass involved, or rotating a simililar mass in an opposite direction ?

Anybody know what rpm a 1 kg OB bike wheel would have to revolve to cause antigrav in this scenario ? Or what speed you'd have to fling a bouncy ball ?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... ides.shtml

[path_finder]

Dear nicbordeaux,
It's absolutely correct: when a mass stops, it's mass is nullified.
When you hold a ball in your hand and then open your fingers, the ball don't fall. Our gravity field is in expansion. The relative distance of the ball within the center of the earth is still the same, but meanwhile we (and the space around us) has been increased, giving to us the impress that the ball was falling.
Disconnected from our space the ball is loosing it's acceleration, this is the reason why (on a relative point of view) we believe that the ball accelerates to the earth ground.
It's exactly the contrary: the ball decelerates in view to return back to the null mass.
Hoping my explanation was clear enough (hard to describe a reversing situation)

[ovyyus]

So you are saying, Bill, that gravity is a product of motion ? That as mass increases with speed, so does gravity ?

Strange, I don't remember saying anything like that :D

[nicbordeaux]

Nor, Bill, did you imply in any way that pequaide's tether fling with claimed massive velocity increase might have anything to do with the grav characteristics etc. Or that this would be the reason that NASA and other underfunded outfits are playing around with this (supposedly).

Yes path_finder, the explanation is limpid.

[Michael]

Bill's trying to entice some thinking on why that is so. It is the charitable thing to do.