Why should we bother trying?

[Grimer]

Yes, that must be it - I've been accused of being staid 'old school' more than once here & it sounds just like it ;7)

I guess, to break the dissonance, I will need a very convincing argument & maybe a quality experiment or two to open my eyes & mind.

Let's continue with the theory first & maybe I won't need step two.

@ Fletcher

An explanation of how I arrived at the present analysis may help.

A year and a half ago I started the following thread:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 2255#62255



As you can see from the above diagram it consisted of two contra-rotating wheels with one of the weight passed from one wheel to the other.

Besides presenting it here I re-posted to another forum whose members are mainly people banned from the old Steorn forum for one reason or another. I posted it there because though they are typical cynics they are very intelligent cynics and I knew that the vituperation I would get was worth bearing for the searching criticisms they might give. If I were making any grievous mistakes someone would be sure to point them out. As expected I received the usual torrent of scorn and invective and just when I thought they had finished one member piped up and claimed unequivocally "Grimer is right" - much to my surprise. He had carried out a computer simulation and shown that there was some slight gain in energy, albeit small.

He didn't seem to realise the significance of his finding though.

I did.

You can't be a little bit pregnant. If there is any gain in energy then you have broken a principle. I told him that if I brought the device to a practical result that I would acknowledge his key contribution to the development. He said I needn't bother and wished me luck.

I could see that if you folded the Vesica about its centre-line that one would have a Keenie type device with the weight and the hole going down the same path. It was this particular point that led me to realise that Keenie probably would have liked to have his weights going down the same path if he could manage it. Ralph has recently confirmed in one of his posts that the difference in the radius of the weight path on the inner and outer wheels is only 1 inch.

At this point I must acknowledge the immensely valuable pioneering work that people like Ralph and Preston have done on the Keenie, or the Heathen as he prefers to call it. The value of such work is that like elimination of suspects in the Cluedo game, it saves later researchers from going up the same blind alleys.

Developing my ideas on Ersatz Gravity led me to see that wheels of different rotational inertias lead to different Counter-Gravito-Motive-Forces on a weight add to a wheel's circumference. It was at that point I realised why the Vesica worked, albeit only just. Before weight transfer the Vesica Wheels are both identical and their inertias are therefore also identical. After transfer however the inertia of one of the wheels is slightly less than the other. In my Keenie model I have taken the inertias to be substantial. This makes the difference in effective gravity acceleration obvious.

I hope this helps.

[Fletcher]

Grimer ..

As you can see from the above diagram it consisted of two contra-rotating wheels with one of the weight passed from one wheel to the other.

..snip..

Developing my ideas on Ersatz Gravity led me to see that wheels of different rotational inertias lead to different Counter-Gravito-Motive-Forces on a weight add to a wheel's circumference. It was at that point I realised why the Vesica worked, albeit only just. Before weight transfer the Vesica Wheels are both identical and their inertias are therefore also identical. After transfer however the inertia of one of the wheels is slightly less than the other. In my Keenie model I have taken the inertias to be substantial. This makes the difference in effective gravity acceleration obvious.

I hope this helps.

I have copied as pasted a previous diagram of yours below.

I wish to understand this further, with your help.

You have two counter-rotating wheels - one rotates inside the other - they carry equal weights - one weight swaps from one wheel to the other & back again ?

The carrying structures have different masses & inertia, because of position of average mass where I = m.r^2

Where in your above diagram does the weight swap over - it will being going up & down in some sort of rotation pattern ?

According to physics the Work Done would be the same for both thus Pe is restored.

The force to move the wheels is supplied solely by gravity i.e. f = m.a where a = g

therefore Work Done = F x D = M.A.D. [LOL]

Inertia is a measure of a body's resistance to change of state of motion - for a wheel structure & weights it can be found by I = m.r^2

This tells us the proportion of inertia one of your wheels has compared to the other i.e. assuming masses are the same but inertia is different then the outer wheel will have more inertia where I = m.r^2 because r is greater than the inner wheel.

Where this becomes important, AFAIK, is when working out the proportions of Translational Kinetic Energy [Trans Ke] & Rotational Kinetic Energy [Rot Ke] - N.B. Rot Ke PLUS Trans Ke = TOTAL Ke.

But the inertia formula tells us that the outer wheel has more resistance to change in state of motion [inertia] than the inner wheel - therefore the Total Ke of both wheels [where Pe is restored] is the same but the inner wheel has greater Rot Ke than the outer, & conversely, the outer has greater Trans Ke than the inner - N.B. the trans Ke is an indicator of inertia as they are related.

So, the inner wheel should want to rotate faster than the outer, all things being equal.

Now, we use imbalance by wheel hopping a shared weight - gravity causes torque or rotational force - if the hypothetical weight grooves were at the same radius then torque wold be the same in both wheels, BUT, we know that the outer wheel cannot rotate as fast as the inner wheel because of its greater inertia.

Here's where I think I'm confused.

The two wheels are geared to keeping timing, symmetry & synchronicity - by having them geared, although their inertia are different, the average inertia for both system will come into play i.e. the rotational speed that a weight can fall on either wheel is averaged out so there is no difference.

Here's the circular loop I'm obviously caught in.

Work Done down & up is the same, because the weight imbalance was caused exclusively by gravity & then Pe was restored - where did any extra Energy enter the picture & from whence did it come ?

P.S. if the wheels are loosely geared by a 'slack' chain method then the weight falling on the outer wheel will pull the chain tight on one side & visa versa for the inner wheel carriage - the point is that inertia differences will mean a timing difference of arriving at the exchange position that must be somehow 'soaked up', IINM ?

[rlortie]

Fletcher

Work Done down & up is the same, because the weight imbalance was caused exclusively by gravity & then Pe was restored - where did any extra Energy enter the picture & from whence did it come ?

The only gain is in the leverage, which in doc's wheel is a little over 1"... This would be of great value providing the inner wheel is kept in symmetrical balance. Attempts to achieve that has left me with less hair than depicted in your avatar.

Ralph

[Grimer]

I can see why you think that, Ralph. But it is not correct. The one inch sets you off on a false trail which finishes up with you tearing your hair out.

I am preparing an answer to Fletcher's question.

[Grimer]

@ Fletcher

As the first stage of an answer consider the following.

A footballer picks a ball out of the back of his net and pushes it 20 feet against a fierce wind which is blowing straight towards his goal. When he's taken it 20 feet towards the other goal and given it 20 feet of wind field potential energy he lets it go. It picks up speed and accelerates towards the back of his net. So, 20 feet of potential energy gained and 20 feet of potential energy lost.

He then gets two footballs and puts them at the end of two arms with a vertical axle in the middle which is dug into the pitch.



The wind force on each ball is the same but the balls don't move backwards to the net because the force on one balances the force on the other and the total force is grounded by the axle.

He then alters the shape of the ball so that it is a cone.



The device now resembles a two arm anemometer . It spins merrily driving a miniature generator.

I ask the same question as you asked:

"where did any extra Energy enter the picture & from whence did it come?"

[Fletcher]

I ask the same question as you asked:

"where did any extra Energy enter the picture & from whence did it come?"

The answer to your question, using your example Grimer, is this.

The Ke of a mass m kg's moving at v meters per second = 1/2mv^2 joules.

Therefore the Ke of 1m^3 [cubic meter] or air is 1/2pv^2 joules. N.B. p = air density.

And, if all of this became pressure, the pressure increase will be 1/2pv^2 newtons per m^2.

Or, if the frontal area presented to the wind is s square meters, the total force on the object will be 1/2pv^2 newtons.

But, the resistance formula is ...

R is proportional to psv^2 ... or ..... R = Kpsv^2

N.B. differing Coefficients are required, depending on shape of object in air flow, to adjust the math theory to fit the experimental evidence because a coefficient of 0.5 [1/2] only works for flat plates.

One of the reasons for a coefficient adjustment to reflect true pressure & force [newtons] is because the math assumes that fluids are NOT viscous, when in fact they are.

So, K should theoretically be 1/2 but for all shapes it varies [so that the force experienced matches the math theory].

What this is saying is that not having viscosity accounted for in fluids [air is a fluid] means that the math does not allow for vortices to form behind the object, which accounts for the increase or decrease in K values [coefficients] - also the math assumes that the air molecules all strike an object & don't flow around at the edges & also that the collisions are all totally inelastic i.e. there is no rebounding of molecules.


So the energy density of the moving air is the same both sides of the axle - but one side has a different Resistance Rating with a different coefficient.


In a nut shell, one side has less resistance force than the other.


So, NO extra Energy entered the picture !


I'm not seeing the analogy to inertia & air resistance at this stage ?

[Grimer]

So, NO extra Energy entered the picture !

Absolutely right.

The problem is not finding extra energy. The problem is organising the oodles of energy that is already there.

Look, for, example how the wind & gravity fields bend the arms of the dumbbell beam.



We have to find a way to reduce the "negative" widdershins energy and increase the "positive" clockwise energy.

As Bing put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgVRwIT ... re=related

Now the anemometer does this by changing shape.

We do it by changing inertia. Moving a weight from a high inertia wheel to a low inertia wheel involves a gain in inertial entropy. The weight represents a higher proportion of the total inertia for the low inertia wheel than it does for the high inertia wheel.

We are cursed with seeing things from an anthropomorphic view point. Looked at from our angle the weight hasn't changed. Looked at from the wheels angle it certainly has. And it's the wheels' point of view that counts. The wheels couldn't care less what we think.

I take it that, being an engineer, not a microbiologist, you do accept the same weight hung from wheels of different inertias will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, just as the anemometer cups experience different effective winds. We get the anemometer's turning moment by changing the cups but we could have got it by changing the winds on the two ball ends.

To take a maths analogy: If we want to reduce a number such as 22/7 we can do so by reducing the numerator to 17 say giving us 17/7. Alternatively we can reduce it by increasing the denominator to 13, say, giving us 22/13

Or a finance analogy. If we want to reduce a footballer's bung stash of a thousand £20 notes which he keeps hidden in his attic, we can steal some of the notes (numerator) or we can print more (denominator). Governments steal money all the time this way. It's called inflation.

Governments are cunning bar-stewards (forgoing a pay rise cos everyone sees it and loading up on expenses which were hidden from public view).

We have to be cunning too.

(And thanks for all the effort you put into your last post. It's appreciated)

[path_finder]

Dear Grimmer,

To take a maths analogy: If we want to reduce a number such as 22/7 we can do so by reducing the numerator to 17 say giving us 17/7. Alternatively we can reduce it by increasing the denominator to 13, say, giving us 22/13

You are right. 355/113 is another famous solution.

You are also right regarding the variation of inertia such as another solution.
It is exactly the purpose of the Tesla's patent about the COG of a multiparted rotating object.

[Fletcher]

I take it that, being an engineer, not a microbiologist, you do accept the same weight hung from wheels of different inertias will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, just as the anemometer cups experience different effective winds. We get the anemometer's turning moment by changing the cups but we could have got it by changing the winds on the two ball ends.

FTR ;7) - I'm not an engineer, in previous careers from present, a valuer & then a pilot.

Unfortunately Grimer I don't accept that the same weight/mass hung from wheels of different inertia's [but same turning moment] will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, like anemometers in wind.

The acceleration from 'g' is constant & never changes, even when an object can't move or has stopped moving.

When those masses are coupled or rotate about an axis then the masses are restrained by inertia, but the acceleration is always the same - the end velocity is different so that although the TOTAL Ke is the same for both, the proportion of Rot Ke to Trans Ke is different, & there lies a loose similarity to the two masses reaching different terminal velocities in air - but that is not a correct analogy in this context & neither is treating inertia in this way.

Inertia gives back what it takes [zero sums] - all that it does is slow the velocity achieved by a mass accelerated by gravity.

The problem is not finding extra energy. The problem is organising the oodles of energy that is already there.

This may be where my cognisant dissonance keeps kicking in.

Gravity is an acceleration, always present & always constant in magnitude, when masses are in proximity [say the earths surface] so producing a field of potential - reducing a masses position [height] in a field allows Ke to manifest, which can do work - therefore, mechanically usable Energy is available to be used - but to release those joules we had to loose an equal number of joules of Potential Energy, so there was no free lunch.

You could say that by providing a path for a mass to follow that allows it to reduce Pe we have created mechanically friendly Ke in its stead - this could be considered organisation.

Look, for example, how the wind & gravity fields bend the arms of the dumbbell beam. We have to find a way to reduce the "negative" widdershins energy and increase the "positive" clockwise energy. Now the anemometer does this by changing shape.

Yes, the anemometer allows a differential in force & pressure captured by virtue of the resistance any particular shape presents to the wind capturing more wind force than another, which causes torque.

You would note, that this doesn't hold true for different shapes in fluids where buoyancy is a upward force - take your anemometer example with triangle ends [of equal volume & density] & place it vertically in a liquid - there is no torque because of shape because the buoyancy force is equally opposing both sides, thus no torque, & the shape has no bearing.

Place this arrangement horizontally into a moving stream, where the medium to transfer momentum is passing by the anemometer & resistance based on shape becomes evident & important again - the important part is that there is a movement of a momentum bearing medium which is already charged with Potential Energy able to be converted to Ke, in part.

We do it by changing inertia. Moving a weight from a high inertia wheel to a low inertia wheel involves a gain in inertial entropy. The weight represents a higher proportion of the total inertia for the low inertia wheel than it does for the high inertia wheel.

Inertia is completely independent of gravity - it is omni-present - inertia is like buoyancy uplift force in the example above, that is, a thing opposing or reducing an objects ability to be accelerated by gravity when coupled - inertia resists a masses ability to be accelerated or decelerated, unless that object is in free fall with no frictions - just like different shapes do not change an objects buoyancy neither does an objects inertia change, unless its mass changes - so it does not matter what shape or angle is presented to the gravity field when masses are coupled, or rotating around an axis.

In your case of the Keenie wheel the two operations are treated as separate activities - one falls slower than the other due to the wheel mediums inertia, when rotating about an axis.

The weight represents a higher proportion of the total inertia for the low inertia wheel than it does for the high inertia wheel.

Whilst this appears sound it is not, IMO - the inertia of each is different, not because of different mass but because of where the radius center of mass is located at what arm from the axis - it is not at all like two different masses [but same volume & shape] in free fall in air - the heavier mass will have a higher terminal velocity because the percentage losses due to frictional drag is less than the other.

The TOTAL Ke for both parts of the Keenie wheel is the SAME - however, because of different inertia's the Rot Ke & Trans Ke's are different.

We are cursed with seeing things from an anthropomorphic view point. Looked at from our angle the weight hasn't changed. Looked at from the wheels angle it certainly has. And it's the wheels' point of view that counts. The wheels couldn't care less what we think.

I try not to give human characteristics or identities to inanimate objects :7) - the mass is the mass - it moves according to physics - some forces move it one way & others another - that movement is a gain in Ke & a reduction in Pe.

N.B. we know, from extensive experimentation, that Pe lost always equals Ke gained - see brachistochrome experiments & masses rotating on wheels.

If two masses fall an equal distance, but due to the inertia of each wheel being different, they arrive at bdc with different velocities, then clearly their Rot Ke's are different & so must be their Trans Ke's.

BUT ... TOTAL Kinetic Energy gained is the same number of joules lost in Pe.

[path_finder]

Dear Fletcher,

The acceleration from 'g' is constant & never changes

There is no certitude at all on this point.
The g acceleration seems to be globally constant, but can be in fact alternative.
There are a lot of such as examples: the light is the most famous case, unless the de Broglie demonstration of its oscillatoring behavior (duality wave/corpuscule).
If the g acceleration would be proven sinusoidal (a very difficult detection), some interesting experiment could be useful.

[Fletcher]

Perhaps this is easier to understand.

A mass at near tdc on a wheel rotates to bdc due to gravity - if the wheel [the medium] has no mass then at any height form start height the velocity gives Ke - this is the same for any diameter wheel.

When the wheel has mass & inertia the mass has a lesser velocity & Rot Ke but more Trans Ke - Total Ke is still the same a Pe lost, for any diameter.


In the brachistochrome experiments two identical balls roll down different steepness slopes - at any height their velocities & Ke's are the same.

However, if we have two round objects with the same mass, but different density & diameter, then the one where I =m.r^2 is least will have the faster velocity than the other at the same height - that means that Total Ke's are the same but they different Rot Ke & Trans Ke, due obviously to inertia.

BUT ... the Ke must always equal the Pe lost, otherwise you have proved that gravity isn't conservative !

I guess that's where you are heading ?!

[Fletcher]

Dear Fletcher,

The acceleration from 'g' is constant & never changes

There is no certitude at all on this point.

The g acceleration seems to be globally constant, but can be in fact alternative.

There are a lot of such as examples: the light is the most famous case, unless the de Broglie demonstration of its oscillatoring behavior (duality wave/corpuscule).

If the g acceleration would be proven sinusoidal (a very difficult detection), some interesting experiment could be useful.

Accepted PF, if experimental evidence is conclusive.

Where I am talking about 'g' being constant I am referring to the context of a gravity wheel of small dimensions at one spot on the earths surface - I think you knew that ;7)

[Fletcher]

P.S. Grimer.

That's why I felt for some time that the keenie wheel was an attempt by the inventor to use Momentum as an Energy source, perhaps a forerunner for the pequaide theory ?

i.e. the inertia was seen as an way to create a differential in Momentum.

momentum = m.v ... N.B. no cognisance is taken of inertia in momentum.

And, if v is different because of inertia then that could do useful work ?

Unfortunately you cannot escape the fact that Pe must be restored after losses & if you could do that then you have also proven that gravity is not conservative !

[bluesgtr44]

So, NO extra Energy entered the picture !

Absolutely right.

The problem is not finding extra energy. The problem is organising the oodles of energy that is already there.

Look, for, example how the wind & gravity fields bend the arms of the dumbbell beam.



We have to find a way to reduce the "negative" widdershins energy and increase the "positive" clockwise energy.

As Bing put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgVRwIT ... re=related

Now the anemometer does this by changing shape.

We do it by changing inertia. Moving a weight from a high inertia wheel to a low inertia wheel involves a gain in inertial entropy. The weight represents a higher proportion of the total inertia for the low inertia wheel than it does for the high inertia wheel.

We are cursed with seeing things from an anthropomorphic view point. Looked at from our angle the weight hasn't changed. Looked at from the wheels angle it certainly has. And it's the wheels' point of view that counts. The wheels couldn't care less what we think.

I take it that, being an engineer, not a microbiologist, you do accept the same weight hung from wheels of different inertias will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, just as the anemometer cups experience different effective winds. We get the anemometer's turning moment by changing the cups but we could have got it by changing the winds on the two ball ends.

To take a maths analogy: If we want to reduce a number such as 22/7 we can do so by reducing the numerator to 17 say giving us 17/7. Alternatively we can reduce it by increasing the denominator to 13, say, giving us 22/13

Or a finance analogy. If we want to reduce a footballer's bung stash of a thousand £20 notes which he keeps hidden in his attic, we can steal some of the notes (numerator) or we can print more (denominator). Governments steal money all the time this way. It's called inflation.

Governments are cunning bar-stewards (forgoing a pay rise cos everyone sees it and loading up on expenses which were hidden from public view).

We have to be cunning too.

(And thanks for all the effort you put into your last post. It's appreciated)

Some nice analogies, Frank. I think Fletch has the better sense of reality in this one....

The problem is not finding extra energy. The problem is organising the oodles of energy that is already there.

Look, for, example how the wind & gravity fields bend the arms of the dumbbell beam.

Yes! So have many others through out the years who are, very probably, far more qualified than we to assess the basics in this situation. The wind is not comparable to gravity as a source in your descriptions....for reasons we're all already aware of. The biggest of them IMHO being that wind can change direction and it's force is variable...HUGE items to ponder while making a comparison of that to gravity.

To take a maths analogy: If we want to reduce a number such as 22/7 we can do so by reducing the numerator to 17 say giving us 17/7. Alternatively we can reduce it by increasing the denominator to 13, say, giving us 22/13

Or a finance analogy. If we want to reduce a footballer's bung stash of a thousand £20 notes which he keeps hidden in his attic, we can steal some of the notes (numerator) or we can print more (denominator). Governments steal money all the time this way. It's called inflation

.


I do agree with your mathematical endeavors here...although they don't work well if gravity is going to be the source in some form or fashion. Until proven otherwise, it is still the most conservative force we know!

I look at this puzzle like electricity in some ways. All aspects of ohms law (V=IxR) are variables because there is already an assumed force being applied, is there not? We can't do that with gravity unless something else is providing the force. So, let's take this one (W=MxG) and try and do it the same way we would ohms law.....it won't work! Any of the factors for ohms law can vary.....gravity never varies!

The next obvious step would be to point out a power (P=VxI) source. There are others, I used the easy one. Power in this formula is considered already supplied.....do that with a gravity wheel! That's the rub....that's the real variation. Using wind you already have a known variable force to work with...wind! Gravity is simply not like wind. It doesn't vary and it shows no resistance that can produce more than it can take and no known material is immune to it's effect, thus we have our "sum zero gain" scenario we are all so familiar with. Call it "height vs. width" if you like.....it's the same thing!

I wish you all the best in trying to "fool" gravity, but I think that it's going to take another force at work to get anything to perform on the level of any of Bessler's wheels.


Steve

[path_finder]

In completion of my post above on the not constant acceleration:
My most greatest dream is to find a way for let oscillate the COG of a multiparted rotating object, in view to enter in resonance with the own frequency of the gravity (if sinusoidal).
In that case a full levitation will be possible (in phase opposition).