Big gravity wheel with video

[Bill_Mothershead]

This just posted on PESWiki site:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_F._M._ ... vity_Wheel

Someone has gone to a lot of trouble and expense to build this monster.

It's a pendulum?...but it rotates 360??

"The transmission of motion to the rotating weight is achieved with
2 wheels similar to the baseball throwing mechanism."

"At the prototype we use electric energy from a 24v battery to power on the motors ..."

"...he has not yet been able to loop the output power into the input,
but he is confident that someone with the proper skills and materials
could do this. "


Well, OK then. Does he have something or not?

[triplock]

I can get something to run all day if I plug it into the mains !!!!!

I bet if it ran he would not have 'open-sourced' it.


Chris

[DrWhat]

I hope that axle is strong. I'd be standing way back if I were him.

[Bill_Mothershead]

I have been trying to figure out if there is some kind of weird
math involved here. Like Ke = 1/2×M×V^2

Much, much simplified....

If you release a weight and let if fall, the the acceleration is CONSTANT.

After one second it has a certain amount of kinetic energy.

After two seconds it has much, much more Ke because its
velocity has really ramped up and Ke is velocity SQUARED.

So the change in kinetic energy from zero to 1 is a lot less
than the change from 1 to 2.

So here is the BIG question.

Is there, perhaps, some advantage in artificially accelerating
a weight BEFORE letting it fall freely?

Has it actually gained more kinetic energy during the 'fast' fall
than it would have if it just had 'slowly' fallen?

Does any of that make any sense?

[triplock]

1/2×M×V^2 = 12volt battery.


Chris

[jim_mich]

So the change in kinetic energy from zero to 1 is a lot less
than the change from 1 to 2.

So here is the BIG question.

Is there, perhaps, some advantage in artificially accelerating
a weight BEFORE letting it fall freely?

The change in energy from one second to two seconds is four time that of the change in energy from zero to one second. The weight also drops four times as far. Thus the change in kinetic energy of a falling weight increases the same amount during equal distances of fall. There is no extra gain of energy from gravity by falling faster.

[pequaide]

When I see experiments like Chalkalis’s I think of how much effort has gone into the project and how no extra work would have been needed to do an experiment that would be a significant contribution to science, which was Chalkalis’s stated goal. Here is that experiment.

Have the 45,700 grams be a ring rather than two round disks. Let the 4.5 kilograms be a sphere instead of a rod, wrap a fiber cable around the ring about once and place the sphere on the end of the cable. Lock the sphere in position on the surface of the ring until the time you choose to release it. Spin the ring with sphere attached up to a known velocity.

Now it does not matter how you spin the ring with the sphere attached but the power source must be removed from the ring so that you have an isolated system when the experiment is conducted.

Spin the ring with sphere attached up to 4 m/sec (this is the average velocity of all the partials in the ring and sphere); remove the power source; and release the sphere. All the motion will be transferred to the sphere. And if Isaac Newton is correct all the momentum will be conserved.

The total momentum before release will be 4 m/sec * 50.2 kilograms = 200.8. For the 4.5 kilogram sphere to have 200.8 units of momentum it must be moving 44.62 m/sec

The 4.5 kilogram sphere moving 44.62 m/sec has 4479.6 joules of energy and the 50.2 kilogram ring and sphere only had 401.6 joules of energy.

With this experiment Chalkalis’s could have proven that The Law of Conservation of Energy is false: that is, if Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum is correct.

These speeds are deadly: I think Chalkalis should take more safety precautions.

[AB Hammer]

LOL

I put a small motor 1.5 volt to my wheel on youtube (the 66rpm one) and did similar thing 2 years ago. What occurs is allot of vibration and back and forth action which would cause you to need a very strong steel and concrete structure, just to deal with it. There is allot more to consider and is not the answer in this stage.

Alan

[Bill_Mothershead]

From Jim's post, the missing inspirational concept is distance.

The weights on this device are obviously fixed on a rotating
structure (almost wrote wheel) so the distance the weights fall
on the descending side is always the same, no matter what the
velocity.

So in this device, pre-accelerating the weights means that
the weights are going to be spending LESS time on the
descending side. The force of gravity will be applied downward
for LESS time. And thus, in any one rotation, gravity will
have LESS time to add any Ke.


There is currently an active topic about "LIFTing weights".

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4055

Someone has revived the familiar idea of "fall slow, rise fast".
That is, if it rises fast there is LESS time that the force of
gravity will be robbing the system of momentum, etc.


The device in the video here is all about "fall fast".
Has he got it hooked up all wrong?

[jim_mich]

Work done by gravity is always force × distance. Time makes no difference. An object always gains the same energy when falling the same distance. It does not matter how much time is involved.

[Grimer]

"An object always gains the same energy when falling the same distance" in the same plane.

[jim_mich]

Even when an object falls down an incline it still gains the same energy. It just takes longer to accelerate and to fall. At the bottom it will have gained the same energy and speed as when falling straight downward, except that the direction of motion is partly sideways and it will have moved a greater total distance at an angled vector.

These are basic physic principles that need to be understood when working with gravity wheels. Unfortunately once one understands these principles it becomes plainly painfully obvious that gravity alone cannot power a PM wheel. Some other principle MUST come into play, or Bessler was a fraud.

Along this line of thinking, Bessler states that weights power his wheel. I'm very curious if Bessler said that gravity (in the original old German language) powered his wheels. I'm sure he talked about gravity when replying to Wagner. And he may even have thought that gravity powered his very early wheels. But after the bi-directional wheels, did he ever say outright that gravity was the source of the power for the wheels? Or did he say that the motion of weights powered the wheels? Or maybe that weight-mass powered his wheels? There is one huge difference between motion/momentum/inertia/CF/ersatz-gravity being the energy source or Earth gravity being the energy source.

[rlortie]

"An object always gains the same energy when falling the same distance" in the same plane.

Even when an object falls down an incline it still gains the same energy. It just takes longer to accelerate and to fall. At the bottom it will have gained the same energy and speed as when falling straight downward, except that the direction of motion is partly sideways and it will have moved a greater total distance at an angled vector.

Gains or loses? when it gets to the bottom where is the gained energy? There is no Pe if its setting on the ground, or should I say 'lowest point'?

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Gains or loses? when it gets to the bottom where is the gained energy? There is no Pe if its setting on the ground, or should I say 'lowest point'?

It gains energy in the form of motion. It gains kinetic energy. Of course once the weight stops then its motion energy (KE) is lost.

Potential energy IS NOT energy. It is only the potential to produce energy because of the possibility of dropping due to gravity.

[rlortie]

Exactly my point Jim, Its gaining in KE while loosing potential, so is it a trade off, can we get more out of one than the other? It is not gaining in energy it is simply using up its potential at an accelerated rate.

IMO something that gains energy is the answer to our long sought search! Does it not stand to reason that if a falling weight gains energy it would take less to put it back where it started?

Ralph