Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[bluesgtr44]

OK...I just got where you are coming from, Bill. Still, no gravity....no flow....so, which came first? Chicken...egg....


Steve

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

Jim made the earlier point. It is an excellent one. The stream in a gravity wheel is the mass of weights we're attempting to get to flow in a current around the axis.

The analogy doesn't hold up. Wind and water are flowing mass. Mass has inertia. It is the inertia that makes the wind and water have the ability to move wheels.

The mass of that current can be described mathematically as kinetic energy. If energy can't be created the question is what caused the movement of Bessler's wheel? Bessler's wheel was mass in motion or energy. Where did the energy come from?

[arthur]

edit # 1 million - I am moving what I had written here about how "energy cannot be created or destroyed" into a new thread.

[ovyyus]

OK...I just got where you are coming from, Bill. Still, no gravity....no flow....so, which came first? Chicken...egg....

In this case the chicken/egg conundrum seems easily resolved - remove gravity from the equation. What if the force of gravity is substituted with, say, the force of compressing a spring? In this example heat energy from the Sun is stored by pushing into a spring instead of gravity. Both provide a means of storing work done by heat from the Sun for later use. When it comes time to release the stored energy in the spring (or in gravity) wouldn't we say that we're really releasing energy from the Sun which had been stored at an earlier time?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bill...

In this case the chicken/egg conundrum seems easily resolved - remove gravity from the equation. What if the force of gravity is substituted with, say, the force of compressing a spring? In this example heat energy from the Sun is stored by pushing into a spring instead of gravity. Both provide a means of storing work done by heat from the Sun for later use. When it comes time to release the stored energy in the spring (or in gravity) wouldn't we say that we're really releasing energy from the Sun which had been stored at an earlier time?

I am really having to stretch to make this connection, Bill. Remove gravity and replace it with a spring, maintaining a stored force provided by say....the sun...through heat transfer. I do understand the connection you are trying to make...here is just one of my problems with your approach....the Draschwitz wheel went from 0-56 rpm's in just 2-3 turns. Not a lot of time for something along the lines of what you seem to be considering...unless I'm missing something...


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

....OK, think about it....0-56 in 2-3 revolutions....I see a bull snortin' to get outa the damn gate!


Steve

[Michael]

Are you in agreement, Michael with my proposal that wind and water can act as conservative forces?

Hi John. I'll have to take the time to read futher what you said to see if there's a point I'm missing but if your simply agreeing that all forms of energy are conserved then I agree. The simple basic reason is the "structure of energy" arises, or is, the form of a greater and a lesser;

The greater acts upon lesser and in doing so moves upon and spreads out though the lesser. The "stuff" of the greater isn't lost, it's just lost it's former potentcy because its now part of a mix. This whole act is what the conservation of energy is.

[ovyyus]

...the Draschwitz wheel went from 0-56 rpm's in just 2-3 turns...

Weren't we discussing, "...evaporation, clouds...rain....gravity...all fall down."? In that context, you were stating that the source of a river's energy was gravity and I was arguing that river water is first raised by heat (Sun) acting against a conservative force (gravity) before it can fall anywhere. How does that relate to the Draschwitz wheel?

[bluesgtr44]

Well....you threw a spring in there and I psychotically associated that with the Draschwitz wheel...that's what my "wheel" therapist says anyway....


Steve

[rlortie]

Are you in agreement, Michael with my proposal that wind and water can act as conservative forces?

Hi John. I'll have to take the time to read farther what you said to see if there's a point I'm missing but if your simply agreeing that all forms of energy are conserved then I agree. The simple basic reason is the "structure of energy" arises, or is, the form of a greater and a lesser;

The greater acts upon lesser and in doing so moves upon and spreads out though the lesser. The "stuff" of the greater isn't lost, it's just lost it's former potentcy because its now part of a mix. This whole act is what the conservation of energy is.

Michael,

There is no denying that I am a staunch ally, and agree with John that gravity is very likely the prime force for Bessler's wheel design.

Look at your above statement using reverse thinking. The lesser acts upon the greater and in doing so moves upon and spreads out to the greater, and not through.

Example; I have a mass mounted on low friction rollers sitting on a flat table top. With a small amount of energy/force I can roll it off the table where as it falls. Would you not agree that more energy was gained in falling than that required to start the reaction. The farther is falls the more kinetic energy it gains.

OK! somebody is going to ask; how do you return the mass to the table. The same way, through leverage. But for now that is not the point I am trying to make.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

If you dig a well you can then add a little energy to rocks in a hand basket, moving them horizontally, letting them fall into the well. Then you can dig a tunnel at the bottom of the well and sink another shaft. You can again add a little more energy to the basket and have it release a lot more kinetic energy by falling down the second shaft. You can continue digging tunnels and shafts eventually arriving at hell.

The trip home is going to cost the rocks all the energy they developed getting there and then some. If you replaced the rocks with bumble bees it would be different. Bumble bees can't do the math. Rocks can do the math.

[Michael]

Ralph it was once believed that a vacuum caused motion. That thought is comparable to your statement;

The lesser acts upon the greater and in doing so moves upon and spreads out to the greater, and not through.

In otherwords it was believed that the vacuum was the prime mover. It is of course now known that it was an error in logic. The vacuum or lesser is needed of course for the motion to occur, but the lesser doesn't act upon the greater. Give it some thought as to why.

Example; I have a mass mounted on low friction rollers sitting on a flat table top. With a small amount of energy/force I can roll it off the table where as it falls. Would you not agree that more energy was gained in falling than that required to start the reaction. The farther is falls the more kinetic energy it gains. OK! somebody is going to ask; how do you return the mass to the table.

You've partially answered your own question here at the end, but for my answer - sure, there might have been more energy in the objects fall than the slight push needed to get it off the table but there wasn't any energy gained in the objects fall when compared to the potential energy the object had sitting on the table. And really, when you add the sum of the slight push needed - you've expended more energy than what the object is capable of giving back.

[Jon J Hutton]

So then is it fair to assume that as a rule/law. a balanced system will always rotate/exist longer than a out of balance system because the act of change to balance the system, creates/wastes energy to create force.

If true we are in for a real surprise!!!

JJH

[Bessler007]

Hello Jon,

Welcome to the cruel world of scientific fact.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

[rlortie]

Michael,

Ralph it was once believed that a vacuum caused motion. That thought is comparable to your statement;

Sorry Michael but being some what educated in hydraulics I do not see the comparison. Not that you are wrong or right on the subject, just a bad anomaly comparing gravity with vacuum.

I have confronted many of vacuum cleaner salesman telling me how powerful there machine is. My reply is that there is not a vacuum cleaner or vacuum pump that will raise anything except air over approximately (depending on air density) 27 feet at sea level. And yes this is definitely the greater overcoming the smaller. Other wise you would never be able to suck a milkshake up a straw? Because suck is not what is happening.

Ralph