Musings on Gravity

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:41 pm

I understand the role gravity plays in the transformation of potential energy to kinetic energy. You said "it is not the energy but the source of it." Gravity is not the energy, right. But it is not the source of the energy either. What is difficult to understand about that? The source of that energy is the sun that moves the water in the gravitational force field. For the wind, the ultimate source of its' energy is also the sun which heats the atmosphere and creates more molecular activity and thus regions of low pressure and high pressure. The high pressure regions rush to fill in the regions of low pressure, causing wind. If you could figure out a way for the sun to lift weights in a gravity engine-wheel, then you'd have it.

You may not have a wish or need to change the definitions of open, closed or isolated systems, but that is what you are inadvertently doing on your musing page.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:54 pm

from wikipedia...

...these things are not difficult..

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

...what does the sun have to do with it..?

..If arguing..please give examples..

richard

John Collins · Post by **John Collins** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:01 pm

Oh my goodness! I must watch my words with more care!

You said "it is not the energy but the source of it." Gravity is not the energy, right. But it is not the source of the energy either. What is difficult to understand about that?

Gravity is not the energy, right got that. Now you're saying its not the source of the energy either, right got that too. All I am trying to point out is that given that I believe that Bessler's wheel was driven by gravity, and that weights fall under the influence of gravity, that gravity provides the means for the weights to fall - ergo gravity is ultimately the source of the energy consumed by the falling weights.

For the wind, the ultimate source of its' energy is also the sun which heats the atmosphere and creates more molecular activity and thus regions of low pressure and high pressure. The high pressure regions rush to fill in the regions of low pressure, causing wind.

I have argued and argued this point over many years and still nobody gets it. Forget the origination of the wind, all I am interested in how it affects the windmill, locally. I know how the wind and water get to be where they are, what I am interested in how the force inherent in currents affects the blades of a windmill or a water turbine - at their interface.

Both currents are conservative forces. Both drive rotational devices. Gravity is also a conservative force but we have been taught that it cannot be used to drive a gravitywheel because it is a conservative force! I have tried to demonstrate why it hasn't worked so far in the last paragraph of my "Musings".

JC

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:24 pm

Richard , the sun has everything to do with the energy we get from hydroelectric dams or from windmills, etc. Without it, we have none of that energy available to us.

John, first you say you've got it that gravity isn't the source of the energy. But then, in the very next sentence, you say ergo gravity is ultimately the source of the energy consumed by the falling weights. It's not. The source of the energy is whatever originally lifted the weight against the pull of gravity, i.e. the sun or a muscle.
The energy in wind and water that we use is dissipated when it strikes a windmill blade or water turbine blade, yes. When that kinetic energy turns the mill or turbine, it converts back to potential energy in the wind or water, ready to be converted back to kinetic energy by the sun or a muscle, etc.
Conservative forces means the force, when measured, doesn't vary over time. gravity is a constant measurement. Non conservative forces like friction can vary over time. That's the difference between them.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:40 pm

eccentrically1

...Please....Gravity is a force ( your admission) F X D is a work....

Gravity is a force which over distance (mass of earth / mass of a wheel)

creates a work...this work can be applied to a wheel...

...what is so hard to comprehend here??

richard....

edit.

John is right...Gravity (the force) is the "source" that provides the work that allows energy to be put in and taken out of the system..

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:53 pm

The short answer is work can be zero even when there is force.
For work to be done, to be a positive amount, energy has to be transferred into or out of a mass.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:58 pm

...fine...good luck.

richard

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:02 pm

Thanks, Richard!

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:41 pm

eccentrically1 wrote:AB hammer - Not when but if a gravity wheel is demonstrated, will our definitions change. Until a demonstration, gravity engines remain impossible according to present definitions. We shouldn't be lured into thinking something is possible by changing the definitions to fit the scenario we might be hoping for.

eccentrically1

No! I meant when. And most likely soon.

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:26 pm

Most likely never, Ab hammer.
Actually, just never. Reality is borne out by observation and meticulous measurement. That's why the laws of motion are so simple to understand; they reflect the reality of the world around us without ambiguity using words with agreed upon meaning. The mathematical formulas derived from those precise measurements can help us predict behaviors of any system.

John Collins · Post by **John Collins** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:11 pm

I'm disappointed that you disagree Eccentrically1. You simply cannot see what I mean when I say that weights fall under the influence of gravity, that gravity provides the means for the weights to fall - ergo gravity is ultimately the source of the energy consumed by the falling weights. It looks obviously correct to me; as obvious as it seems wrong to you.

And I'm with Alan in this.

JC

rlortie · Post by **rlortie** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:59 pm

I believe I read an interpretation of an eyewitness report regarding Bessler's first wheel put on display that was Uni-directional.

It was reported that as soon as he released it from the tie-down or lock it began to move under its own influence. Now, was it gravity that caused this or was it a preset of OB weights. Either way gravity would be the force that created the wheel to turn.

True it could have been a wound up spring, but if it were, what kept it running after the spring wound down?

Ralph

eccentrically1 · Post by **eccentrically1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:00 pm

Your statements seem correct to you John, because of the way you are thinking, or maybe just misspeaking, about energy.
First, falling weights don't consume any energy. And second, for a weight to fall, or rather be attracted to the earth, it first has to be lifted away from the earth. So what you're saying then, is that gravity is the source of energy that lifts the weight away from the earth and also the force that brings it back to earth. How can it be both?

murilo · Post by **murilo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:12 pm

Grimer and Greendoor,
still about gravity...
One can not avoid to think... thinking in images and pictures is a challenge to an already fried brain!
For general, I accept a concept if I can build an 'unfinished picture' about the stuff; this is the way I use and need to.
On this way, my mind accept gravity as something that comes as part of a body and has 'no proper velocity' to reach anything else.
It comes together with that body, or agent, or cause... it's already there surrounding it... so as is already around all separated bodies, as an 'aura'.
I'm not very sure if this 'gravity field' may be deformed as we see with magnets arrangements.
Best!
Murilo

murilo · Post by **murilo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:32 pm

eccentrically1 wrote:Your statements seem correct to you John, because of the way you are thinking, or maybe just misspeaking, about energy.
First, falling weights don't consume any energy. And second, for a weight to fall, or rather be attracted to the earth, it first has to be lifted away from the earth. So what you're saying then, is that gravity is the source of energy that lifts the weight away from the earth and also the force that brings it back to earth. How can it be both?

eccentrically1,
first of all, I want to welcome you to BW forum!

It's easy to see that you are a good technician and you are forcing yourself to come and stay in our 'weird environment', or our 'adventure' in the PM search, or even anything else we dare to deal, as freethinkers.

If you understand correctly to our pragmatic means, I'm sure that you'll be very worthy to all. Some technicians in this forum just use to be blocked and shut down when some honest opinion is needed... 8)

Our vision is more near to the gravity effects and to its management than to any concepts and theoretic discussions. We know very well that the clues we follow are 'against the laws' - the basic physic laws.

Please, stay around and be patient!
Best!
Murilo

BesslerWheel.com

Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity

re: Musings on Gravity