Big gravity wheel with video

[jim_mich]

Does it not stand to reason that if a falling weight gains energy it would take less to put it back where it started?

No, because to lift the weight back up requires acting against the exact same force that pushed it down.

[Grimer]

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.

I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that any deviation from a straight line descent under gravity, whether vertical or on an inclined plane, involves rate of change of acceleration, the third time derivative of position. In other words it involves Ersatz Gravity in some way (or centri-fugal/petal force if you prefer).

In his time Bessler couldn't possibly have understood where the energy came from.

I certainly agree with your sentence which I have emboldened in red.

[Grimer]

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

It depends on the path that it is allowed to fall along and the path by which it is returned to its starting point.

If the path that it is allowed to fall along involves the third derivative of position with respect to time and the path by which it is returned to its starting point doesn't then we have an asymmetry with respect to the force/superforce which the body experiences and it is not unreasonable to suppose this involve different amounts of energy being imparted to the body on the way down and being abstracted from the body on the way up.

So I agree with you Ralph. It does stand to reason once one fully understands the problem.

[rlortie]

Does it not stand to reason that if a falling weight gains energy it would take less to put it back where it started?

No, because to lift the weight back up requires acting against the exact same force that pushed it down.

Jim, the last thing I need is a debate, I simply do not have the time for arm chair philosophy. I will make one more statement and then I am out of here!

Your above statement IMO is contradictory; You admit that it takes the exact amount of force supplied by energy to reset the mass. So once again I ask where is the gain in falling you speak of?

There is no gain, there is only accelerated use of the potential.

Ralph

[Wubbly]

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.

You are not gaining any energy, only changing it from one form to anther, loosing potential energy and gaining kinetic energy.

In the Atwoods Analysis thread, a relatively constant mass difference was dropped at varying speeds (and thus requiring different times to fall). The potential energy, or potential to do work, was converted to kinetic energy, and then the kinetic energy was converted back into mechanical potential energy in a spring as the mass was stopped. Although the time varied between experiments, the energy remained constant (or relatively constant within experimental error). Time made no difference.

[Grimer]

Does it not stand to reason that if a falling weight gains energy it would take less to put it back where it started?

No, because to lift the weight back up requires acting against the exact same force that pushed it down.

If the weight is acted upon by both Newtonian Gravity(NG) and Ersatz Gravity(EG) by being sent along a Bernoulli spiral, say, on the way down ...



... then it is picking up kinetic energy from both forms of gravity (from Gravity and CF to use your terminology). It will therefore have more kinetic energy when it gets to the bottom than it would have had if it had been acted upon by Newtonian gravity alone. If this energy is used to send the weight back up on a vertical path against the force of NG then the weight will rise higher than its starting point.

[pequaide]

You are correct about the Atwood's Wubbly; energy is not a function of time, but momentum is a function of time. If you double the time over which the same force acts (Atwood’s machine) you double the momentum.

After you have large quantities of momentum you can transfer all of it to a small object, thereby making energy.

There is more than one Law of physics. The Law of Conservation of Momentum has far more experiments that prove that it is true than energy does. Energy conservation often needs ghost energy (unmeasured heat) to make it work.

[greendoor]

Jim & Wubbly - I totally agree with your statements that both Work and Energy are independent of Time. But I would say that this is an example of the maths modeling the maths - self referencing. Energy is the capacity to do Work: Work is the capacity to consume Energy:both equate to Force x Distance (no consideration of Time). Certainly Time is a function of Velocity, but in the equations Time is effectively cancelled out. This - I believe - is how we have been hoodwinked for so long.

Potential Energy comes down to a function of height - with no consideration of Time. That's fairly obvious. So any Energy-based maths model will never acknowledge the contribution that Time can play when dealing with falling objects under the (relatively constant) force of gravity.

When a pendulum swings - the Time spent ascending and descending is basically the same for both. The period of oscillation can vary enormously - but because the acceleration and deceleration is brought about by the same (relatively constant) force of gravity - Time is basically the same for rise and fall.

For this reason - I believe - we have failed to notice that Time has been removed from our consideration. The maths works for most practical purposes - because for most practical purposes, Time is not an issue and can be ignored.

But what happens when we purposefully engineer dramatic imbalances in Time?? This is what Pequaide is doing - and the consequences are amazing. They certainly screw up the Energy math - but that should not be seen to be odd.

[greendoor]

Frank - I think you are onto something there. It is my belief that a Time imbalance (slow fall/fast rise) is the secret of anomalous energy gain. But the slow fall must make maximum use of the force x time as Acceleration. Simply slowing the descent with friction losses, or diverting the force to ground to stress the earth is self defeating. So how to capture the extended force x time?

Pequaide has given us the Atwood principle - whereby we divert the force x time into Accelerating a heavier balanced mass system. The inertia of this system slows down the rate of fall - BUT - we are capturing practically all the force x time available in the form of (slowly but surely) accelerating a heavy mass system. Simple Newtonian maths proves that - without a doubt - the Momentum that can be gain over long periods of Time greatly exceed the Momentum of the same small 'driver mass' simply free-falling.

But your idea seems to offer another solution perhaps that doesn't require a heavy mass system.

Your idea seems to allow the 'driver mass' to remain in descent for longer than free-fall by spiralling and thereby falling again and again through ever decreasing heights.

This would be to no avail IF the Rise Time always = Fall Time. But - from my initial thoughts about this - it seems to me that the spiral effect means that the Fall Time always exceeds the Rise Time - causing the necessary Time imbalance ...

Are we bonkers?

[Grimer]

... Are we bonkers?

No - Just rediscovering something which has been discovered at least three times before but not previously understood.

If people don't understand an experimental result they either think it must be wrong or, more generally, simply ignore it,

[greendoor]

Maybe I should explain what appears to me to be blindingly obvious, but probably isn't ...

When I see the Bernoulli spiral that Frank has posted - I immediately think of a weight on a tether getting would up in ever decreasing circles.

It seems to me that the weight would fall and accelerate, until the tether tightens at the bottom. Then - all the momentum of the weight would be turned into an Impulse (force x time) which would be accelerate the weight even faster, so the Rise time would be less - and then at the Top this cycle repeats - until all the tether is wound up.

If Pathfinder saw any merit in this as a concept, I have no doubt he could design an ingenious system to exploit this...

[Grimer]

...
There is more than one Law of physics. The Law of Conservation of Momentum has far more experiments that prove that it is true than energy does. Energy conservation often needs ghost energy (unmeasured heat) to make it work.

Agreed.

The Law of Conservation of Momentum involves an absolute frame of reference for rotation.

The law of the conservation of energy, kinetic energy for example, has no absolute frame of reference for linear velocity.

[path_finder]

Dear Grimer and greendoor,

If Pathfinder saw any merit in this as a concept, I have no doubt he could design an ingenious system to exploit this..

.
The idea of the spiral is interesting. But once arrived at the end and outside of the spiral, climbing on the inner rim of the wheel thanks the rotational energy, how can you let enter back the cylinder in the center of the spiral?

[Grimer]

greendoor wrote:
If Pathfinder saw any merit in this as a concept, I have no doubt he could design an ingenious system to exploit this..
.
The idea of the spiral is interesting. But once arrived at the end and outside of the spiral, climbing on the inner rim of the wheel thanks the rotational energy, how can you let enter back the cylinder in the center of the spiral?

I think you may have misunderstood.

The ball goes from the outside of the spiral ramp to the inside. It is effectively guided down a vortex wall. The ramp has to be absolutely rigid so that no energy is lost to ramp deflection.

[greendoor]

Pathfinder & Grimer - my fault for throwing in the idea about a tether winding up. I believe there is something about vortex spirals that keep cropping up in free-energy ideas for a reason. I don't want to detract from Frank's idea - there are probably many ways to exploit a spiral action.

I'm seeking a basic principle on which to base designs - and I can't ignore the Momentum maths of slow fall/fast rise. A tether is an essential part of Pequaide's conversion of heavy/slow Momentum to fast/light Momentum (hence energy gain due to Velocity squaring). A tether is also suggested by Bessler's dog analogy.

We all know about the angular momentum trick of a spinning skater pulling their arms in and speeding up rotation. Can an inwardly spiralling mass create a Time imbalance?

I've sometimes wondered what would happen if we could make a pendulum that was shorter on the rise side than on the fall side .... similar concept.

I think I can predict your objection: this all take Force to achieve. But Force is what we have for free. The force of gravity acting on a mass never goes away: either it is accelerating a mass downwards, or - once the mass hits Earth - it is stressing the Earth and creating the counter-balancing Normal Force.

Maybe we can create a situation where the force of gravity acting on a falling weight is used - via a lever - to provide the necessary force to accelerate the faster-ascending weight .... weights acting in pairs as Bessler suggests ...

Possibly there is more to Trevor's "multi lever phenomenon" than meets the eye ... if so, I am sure it would be due to Time imbalance.

Sorry to digress.