Gravity as a conservative force

[Michael]

Why do you link my comments with that question Michael? I regard springs as a means of temporary storage of energy, available for release subsequent to the storage moment. The difference between gravity and springs is that energy has to be expended to compress the spring and the same energy (minus small amounts due to friction etc) is produced upon extension. Gravity is constant; there is no need to create the pull (or push) of gravity by storing it's energy, it is there all the time.

I asked you a question, you gave an answer, then I wanted clarity. John I can't fathom any machine that makes use of gravity where a type of spring system couldn't be used as a substitute. Gravity pulls down but it takes energy to raise back up. Same as a spring system. Your only referencing one type of spring system-a compression spring, which would be the inverse of an extention spring, which could be made to mimic gravity perfectly were one to have a limit to how far mass moves, like in a wheel. So, if one can create a gravity wheel, one can use the same principles and use a specially designed spring system, unless there is something extraordinary about gravity like the example of turning ether on and off if that was what gravity was the product of.

[Clarkie]

Michael/John,
My view is that you are both right, gravity is a constant 'stream' of energy and spring are essential to help extract it.

Pete.

[John Collins]

Michael, I think that a spring would have to be continuously compressed to mimic gravity, but it would also have to continuously releaed at the same time, which is obviously impossible. But I understand your point and I shall have to give it more thought. Pete, I will get back to you, I promise.

John Collins

[Vic Hays]

Perhaps gravity is not like a stream of force moving objects together.

If gravity was a stream of force then the amount of time a weight was in the stream would make a difference.

Consider a gravity wheel. As it turns the weights must ascend and then descend. If the weights ascend at a higher velocity than descend there should be a net energy gain.

Recently some of us have been examining a wheel which does this very thing and there is no apparent energy output.

So gravity in this situation is more like a quantum state. The amount of energy to raise a weight one foot equals the amount of energy that can be gained by the weight dropping one foot. Time does not enter into the equation. If gravity was flowing as a stream, time would enter into the equation.

[jim_mich]

If gravity was a stream of force then the amount of time a weight was in the stream would make a difference.

If we compare gravity to a flowing river then a paddle dipped into the river only produces energy relative to the force of the river on the paddle and the distance the paddle is pushed by that force. This is exactly how gravity works. A weight is in the gravity stream all the time. What counts is any movement that is caused by gravity.

Assending and decending velocities alone do not determine energy input/output. One must also consider the leverage factor. When you do this all wheels balance unless you add some force to move the weights in an unnatural path. Then you have the problem of where to get the added force.

[ken_behrendt]

I've always wondered why an unsupported mass located in a planet's gravity field should suddenly begin losing gravitational potential energy (and the rest mass responsible for it) and, as a consequence begin accelerating toward the planet's center. This is a problem that has occupied mankind since the times of the ancient Greek "natural" philosophers.

Obviously, both objects have their own gravity fields and it is some sort of interaction taking place between these which results in what we perceive as gravitational force. But, what could be responsible for this interaction? A similar situation exists in the case of the forces acting between electrically charged bodies and between magnetized objects.

There's something invisible present that must be responsible for the interactions that lead to gravitational, electric, and magnetic forces.

Some have embraced the idea of an invisible "ether" to rationalize these effects, but the properties of this hypothetical ether seem somewhat vague and have not yet lead to mathematical predictions of these forces.

Over the years, I've found myself leaning toward the idea first proposed by Newton that there is an actual emission of particles involved. In his model the particles come raining in from "out there" somewhere in space towards the centers of all material objects and exert a sort of pressure on them that can drive them together.

In my still evolving conceptualization for gravitational forces, I reverse this simple model with an outflow of gravity particles (known as "gravitons") away from the centers of all of the subatomic particles in a piece of matter. The gravitational forces between any two objects in the universe would then be due to interactional forces taking place between the gravity particle emissions from the objects. Unfortunately, this model then rationalizes gravitational forces by postulating yet another "action at a distance" type force...that acting between gravitons.


Jim wrote:

Assending and decending velocities alone do not determine energy input/output. One must also consider the leverage factor. When you do this all wheels balance unless you add some force to move the weights in an unnatural path. Then you have the problem of where to get the added force.

If Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is valid (and I'm confident it is), then it leads to the conclusion that the energy output of an running overbalanced gravity wheel, ΔPEgrav, per wheel rotation is given by:

ΔPEgrav = - 2 √2 π M g d cosφ

where π is, of course, pi with a value of about 3.1415927, M is the total mass of the wheel's driving weights, g is the acceleration due to gravity at the elevation of the wheel, d is the distance between the wheel's axle and the CG of the driving weights, and φ is the angle that the CG of the wheel's driving weights makes with a horizontal line passing through the wheel's axle.

I think that the terms d and cosφ pertain the that "leverage factor" you mentioned.

Obviously, in my approach to overbalanced gravity wheel operation, the force needed to maintain the imbalance of the driving weights' CG would be provided by the energy gotten as the weights continuously lose rest mass during wheel rotation.


ken

[Vic Hays]

Assending and decending velocities alone do not determine energy input/output. One must also consider the leverage factor. .net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif[/img][/url]

Velocity has nothing to do with it. Only distace traveled matters.

[ken_behrendt]

Vic wrote:

Velocity has nothing to do with it. Only distace traveled matters.

If one actually believes that, then one would have to conclude that an overbalanced gravity wheel is a physical impossibility because the rotating weights within such a wheel will always be vertically rising and falling through the same distance!


ken

[james kelly]

Vic; I have the belief that you need to rethink what you just stated. Some one else needs to think about why they keep building city ON TOP of city, going back thousands of years. why are those old cities so far down? jim kelly

[Vic Hays]

If one actually believes that, then one would have to conclude that an overbalanced gravity wheel is a physical impossibility because the rotating weights within such a wheel will always be vertically rising and falling through the same distance!


ken

That is the conclusion I have reached. No one can conclude that Bessler used overbalanced wheels. There may be another principle, but overbalance is not the one.

[murilo]

John, hi!
This thread and your talk are great!
Gravity is not a force; it's a result of something else, the effect!
If it was a force, several pilled bodies would be not summed in their total. I mean, the bodies nearest to 'gravity source' should 'take' the force of others, before or after.
All them summ weight, at contrary to 'expend'.
This 'summing' is conserved by 'resistance' to the fall to earth center.
If you take a free iron ball, you can observ to all gravity behavior over it, but in a *free ambient*.
If this ball wold be recovered by a large and totally solid mass of iron, or still, more to be unreacheable by your hand, this ball may not be weighted, turnned and jumped 'free' to up and down, and so on.
Hard to explain, but I insist that gravity - a force that is 'allready there' and may disturbed just by other forces and distance - happens in the *vacuum*, or *hollow*, of 'concentrated matter' and/or solid matter.
The 'agregative force' is just the concentration of bodies.
My 2¢! regs. M.

[1712]

John Collins wrote:

"We know that varying the distance from the axle of a rising weight and a falling weight can create torque, which will make the wheel turn. Can the weights be arranged to produce continuous torque as the wheel turns? Yes. To reproduce this effect using only gravity means that we must also use gravity to arrange for the weights to move in a way that fulfils the torque requirement. Can this be done? Yes. "

Well, why even talk like this if you are so confident of having the design of Bessler?

Let the working wheel be the proof. It will only be "a few more days right"?

OR,

you've actually nailed the problem and have put this stuff out to mock everybody...............

BUT, with all due respect to "PIMAN" is it?, it can't be done, and Bessler just created the whole thing as a diabolical scheme to bother the math whizzes of the day. That's what the truth is right there. All is just IMHO!!!

[John Collins]

Thanks Murilo, I shall have to digest your comments before I can respond.

1712, I'm talking like this to try to formulate an understanding of gravity and how it works. Yes I hope I've got the design right and Iamb trying to complete it as soon as possible in the face of several competing issues here at home, but whether it works or not, I still think it's useful to try to find a way to satisfy those educationists who told me it was impossible.

Whoever constructs a working wheel is going to have their claims put to the severest tests and I can imagine a scenario where a so-called 'expert' asks you, maybe on TV, how do you explain why this works when all our education system is geared up to teaching us that it can't? You can hardly say 'I don't know', neither can you spout some stuff about the ether or gravity-shielding. I would like to try to formulate some cohesive explanation that doesn't fly in the face of the laws of physics. In the end the explanation has to conform to the known laws - and logic. That is why I started this thread and analogy is a good way to try to understand why things behave as they do.

John Collins

[james kelly]

John; Right On! You said what is obvious. Should any of them design a wheel that actually performs, it wiill be because of the laws of physics not in spite of them. I have a great respect for you. jim kelly

[ken_behrendt]

John wrote:

I can imagine a scenario where a so-called 'expert' asks you, maybe on TV, how do you explain why this works when all our education system is geared up to teaching us that it can't? You can hardly say 'I don't know', neither can you spout some stuff about the ether or gravity-shielding. I would like to try to formulate some cohesive explanation that doesn't fly in the face of the laws of physics. In the end the explanation has to conform to the known laws - and logic.

You are in luck, John. Bessler's 4th Law of Motion fulfills all of your requirements!


ken