Impact is the Key

[Jim Williams]

The best arguement I heard against gravity being an energy source was that gravity, "only goes in one direction." But I'm not going to argue the point beyond agreeing with jim_mich that gravity is going to have nothing to do with a solition.

Noting I didn't solve Bessler's wheel today I took off on whether black holes are at absolute zero or something close instead. A quick Google found me not alone in that question, but no closer to an answer to that than to a wheel either.

[smotgroup]

Black holes may be very much like a BEC condensate in that it acts as a single entity of matter, however, I don't think Black holes have the ability to store an infinite amount of matter & energy fast enough because they have been known to release energy in the form of X-Rays & Gamma Ray jets which is also an indication that Black Holes are also generating anti-matter because this excess radiation is a finger print and is rewriting some theories as to why anti-matter is not very common in the universe, the big bang theory indicates that there should of been an equal amount of it present if the big bang was true, but it is not holding water very well with the new information on black holes.

Jerry

[greendoor]

The best arguement I heard against gravity being an energy source was that gravity, "only goes in one direction."

That seems like the worst possible argument to me ...

I suppose if you owned a property with a river that "only goes in one direction", or has a prevailing wind that "only goes in one direction", you would just have to freeze in winter due to lack of energy ...

For that matter, the electrons in a DC battery only go one way too - I suppose that makes them unuseable as an energy source ...

I am fully convinced gravity is a viable power source. I just don't want to share my logic for this just yet, until I have the experimental proof. But I see other people in this forum for appear to share the same idea, or are skating dangerously close to discovering it for themselves. The pieces to the puzzle have practically all been mentioned in threads here over the last 12 months or less. I'm surprised that nobody has made a big deal about it, but I suspect those who see and make the connections shut up about it, and perhaps talk about anything and everything else ...

Give it some time. Or find some better reasons to ignore the obvious source of unlimited force into Bessler's wheel.

[greendoor]

Ralph - Bet to differ. Perhaps one of the physics people here can explain it better than I can. Gravity for its part supplies none of the energy. It's like saying a heavy weight attached to a clock to make the clock run means the clock is powered by gravity. It's not. The energy comes from someone lifting the weight back up so the clock can continue to run. The energy is not from the gravity, it's in the resistance to gravity by lifting the weight back up. The same is true when matter is collapsed by gravity. The heat generated is not from the gravity itself, it's from the resistance of atoms to being crushed. The heat energy is not being supplied by gravity's energy anymore than gravity energy itself is a source of energy to power a clock. Gravity is not a component of the triad.

Jim W.

Jim - you obviously don't believe gravity can be a source of energy.

But most people would accept that gravity is a Force. (I used to think it may be an acceleration, but i've been cured of that idea). We all accept that a Force can Accelerate a Mass. We can all accept that an accelerated mass has Velocity, and hence Momentum & Kinetic Energy. Energy that has the capacity to perform Work, hence Power - as evidenced by Hydro Damns. So right there, it would appear to be reasonable to assert that gravity can be a source of energy.

I know you want to claim that the energy came from the PE of the elevated water, which was elevated by solar radiation, etc, etc. But that's really just a semantic chicken vs egg type of argument.

I respect the useful 'book-keeping' purpose of calculations for Potential Energy - but really, Potential Energy is not a real thing. It's a book-keeping convention. The Power comes from gravity alone. No gravity - no power. PE is a convenient way of discussing Available Height in which the mass is allowed to fall under the acceleration of gravity. It's an external variable - which can be manipulated - and therefore not a genuine analog of real physical energy, merely a useful calculation of the real energy that will be attained once the mass is allowed to accelerate.

Semantics really. But semantics that are keeping us blind. If you truely believe that gravity cannot be a power source, then you are never going to find it.

[Grimer]

Jim - you obviously don't believe gravity can be a source of energy.

But most people would accept that gravity is a Force. (I used to think it may be an acceleration, but I've been cured of that idea). We all accept that a Force can Accelerate a Mass. We can all accept that an accelerated mass has Velocity, and hence Momentum & Kinetic Energy. Energy that has the capacity to perform Work, hence Power - as evidenced by Hydro Damns. So right there, it would appear to be reasonable to assert that gravity can be a source of energy.

I know you want to claim that the energy came from the PE of the elevated water, which was elevated by solar radiation, etc, etc. But that's really just a semantic chicken vs egg type of argument.

I respect the useful 'book-keeping' purpose of calculations for Potential Energy - but really, Potential Energy is not a real thing. It's a book-keeping convention. The Power comes from gravity alone. No gravity - no power. PE is a convenient way of discussing Available Height in which the mass is allowed to fall under the acceleration of gravity. It's an external variable - which can be manipulated - and therefore not a genuine analog of real physical energy, merely a useful calculation of the real energy that will be attained once the mass is allowed to accelerate.

Semantics really. But semantics that are keeping us blind. If you truly believe that gravity cannot be a power source, then you are never going to find it.

Good post, well expressed. particularly the bit about the potential energy. If it gets there by constant acceleration rather than at constant velocity then the potential energy doubles.

[Grimer]

I have a problem.

My problem is, I can see very clearly that the energy available for harvesting from a free fall impact is mv^2 and not 1/2.mv^2 as is traditionally thought. There are many examples from different fields to back this up. Why, there is even some chap who keeps rabbiting on that we only use half the current in our electrical machines. I 'spect some members can recall his name.

My problem is getting this across to the other members with the skills to build a device which harvests this energy. I'm sure that at least two people have already built a PMM, viz. Bessler and Pop Keenie. I would guess that Hans von Lieden is very close.

In the case of Keenie we even have the critical parts of his machine and we can recognise characteristics which will allow energy to be abstracted from the gravitational field. These include independent rings of approximately the same mass so that angular momentum can be conserved and kinetic energy maximised. Also, of course, the weights which are independent of both rings and provide the impulse to send the rings in opposite directions with 1/2.mv^2 of K.E. each.

I must admit I find it difficult to get my head around exactly how Keenie's machine works. For me the principle of the Paternoster device is much easier to grasp since I am familiar with the strain energy implications of a rigid body impacting a flexible beam and recognised immediately that if one "freezes" the double deflection one can transport the second order energy to the other side of the paternoster and trigger it to raise the weights.

Impact from free-fall acceleration gives twice the energy needed to raise the weights so half of it can be diverted to useful work, indeed, must be diverted or the machine would accelerate to destruction (a bit like the large d.c. motor where I disconnected the field coils because the galvanometer was winding back against the stop. Fortunately the lecturer in charge leapt to the off handle in time. After that I confined myself to holding the tachometer).

The strategy I intend to adopt, therefore, is to tackle the presentation piecemeal and hope the members can find a piece to fit their field of experience and allow them to see what I see from their own standpoint.

[Grimer]

Jim - you obviously don't believe gravity can be a source of energy.

But most people would accept that gravity is a Force. (I used to think it may be an acceleration, but I've been cured of that idea). We all accept that a Force can Accelerate a Mass. We can all accept that an accelerated mass has Velocity, and hence Momentum & Kinetic Energy. Energy that has the capacity to perform Work, hence Power - as evidenced by Hydro Damns. So right there, it would appear to be reasonable to assert that gravity can be a source of energy.

I know you want to claim that the energy came from the PE of the elevated water, which was elevated by solar radiation, etc, etc. But that's really just a semantic chicken vs egg type of argument.

I respect the useful 'book-keeping' purpose of calculations for Potential Energy - but really, Potential Energy is not a real thing. It's a book-keeping convention. The Power comes from gravity alone. No gravity - no power. PE is a convenient way of discussing Available Height in which the mass is allowed to fall under the acceleration of gravity. It's an external variable - which can be manipulated - and therefore not a genuine analog of real physical energy, merely a useful calculation of the real energy that will be attained once the mass is allowed to accelerate.

Semantics really. But semantics that are keeping us blind. If you truly believe that gravity cannot be a power source, then you are never going to find it.

Good post, well expressed. particularly the bit about the potential energy. If it gets there by constant acceleration rather than at constant velocity then the potential energy doubles.

Put in another way, gravitational energy potential is independent of the numerator term in the distance/time ratio, independent of the spatial path one takes.

But not independent of the denominator term, not independent of the time path one takes.

Same thing applies to money, doesn't it. Instant money is conserved but money transferred with time delay isn't. That's why in inflationary times anyone with any sense spends the money as soon as they get it. Conversely, in deflationary times people hang on to money since it is appreciating all the time in term of other assets. It's also why governments are always decreasing the ratio of the unit to the total (printing money). It allows them to steal without people generally being aware of it and unlike Ponzi schemes it's perfectly legal.

Without a fixed frame of reference linear velocity is subjective unlike angular velocity which is objective since the fixed stars act as a framework for angular velocity.

Because mass is ultimately the reciprocal of closed path velocity, as I and Xavier Borg have shown, mass is also subjective. I once had a long argument with Lister on the Steorn forum which led to him claiming that the mass of a body was different for different observers. I pointed out that this must mean mass is a subjective property like apparent area for example. The apparent area of a triangle will vary with the distance of an observer. If he is near the apparent area is bigger. If he is far away the apparent area is smaller. By contrast the number of sides of a triangle is an objective property not dependent on the observer.

To be fair to Lister when we got to that point in the argument he didn't try to wriggle, he just failed to reply - and I didn't push it.

[daxwc]

Maybe he went on holidays or didn't have the necessary patience to teach ;)))

[erick]

What's this about gravity creating friction? At absolute zero there would be just a bunch of atoms hanging around doing nothing. Yet they would all still be attracted to each other because gravity would still exist. Additional energy would need be added to get these atoms moving around, i.e., be heated, which wouldn't be gravity, but would be something other than gravity. E=mc2, for example, or maybe friction.

The friction created by the intense gravitational pressure within the core of our sun, all stars and our own planet is the direct result of gravity. There needs to be enough gravitational force acting on enough matter to make heat energy in the form of friction. Indeed theoretically speaking, if the Big Bang Theory is correct than the Big Bang itself, the source of all energy in our Universe, was the result of massive gravitational pressure. This pressure was so great that it caused an explosion big enough to generate everything in existence.

[erick]

The best arguement I heard against gravity being an energy source was that gravity, "only goes in one direction." But I'm not going to argue the point beyond agreeing with jim_mich that gravity is going to have nothing to do with a solition.

Except for the fact that Bessler himself said, several times, that his machine was set in motion by simple over-balance. It's the mechanism that causes the overbalance that is the tricky part...

[Grimer]

Comparison between Thermal and Gravitational Potential Energy

Suppose you have a collection of ambient temperature gas molecules having a range of velocities. You separate out some of the high velocity molecules so that you now have a mass of gas at a higher temperature. The difference in temperature between the group of separated molecules and ambient is the potential energy of the group.

But what is easily overlooked is that the temperature of the group of remaining molecules has dropped because their average velocity had dropped. Like the British education system the high fliers have been creamed off leaving the skimmed milk with less chance of living on the fat of the land.

Supposing you remove all the faster than average molecules, i.e. 50% of the total number. Then the remaining 50% will have a temperature as much below ambient temperature as the high fliers are above.

Interestingly enough there is a mechanical device, the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which does exactly this.



People slightly familiar with the theory of heat engines will recognise that the difference in temperature between the hot gas and ambient has potential for doing work. They may not realise that the difference in temperature between the cold gas and ambient also has a potential for doing work. This can easily be demonstrated with a model Stirling Engine running on an ice cube.

One cannot increase the work potential of one part of a closed system above ambient without also increasing the work potential of another. Work potential is independent of the sign of the thermal potential

One of the first thing civil engineers are taught is that you cannot decrease the gravitational potential energy of one piece of land without decreasing the potential energy of another. You can't bring low a hill without filling in a valley. In a railway line or a road the amount of cut balances the amount of fill unless other considerations dictate otherwise.

If you raise a hill the work potential energy available by dropping down from the top of the hill to ground level is matched by the work potential energy available from dropping down from ground level to the bottom of the hole left by the removal of the hill.

[jim_mich]

Higher velocity molecules! Lower velocity molecules! The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube uses CF to separate the hot high velocity molecules from the cold low velocity molecules. Hot air comes out one end and cold air comes out the other end. The molecules self-separate into hot and cold. This requires the air to be in motion though the tube.

If you had a device whereby CF caused moving weights to self-separate into faster and slower moving weights then you would have the makings of a PM device.

[erick]

Yes but moving/separating molecules of air that weigh almost nothing is entirely different than moving weights that weigh ~4lbs (according to witnesses). The amount of CF required for the above vortex tube is many magnitudes smaller than what would be required to move weights. It would require a large initial input of energy to create that amount of CF. No?

What you're proposing is like saying that because a small insect can walk on water (due to its cohesive properties) people ought to be able to walk on water too...

[Jim Williams]

greendoor - The arguement that convinced me goes something like this: You attach a rock to a motor and the motor will run until the rock reaches the ground, but then you have to lift the rock back up again. I'm sure you've heard many arguements the same as that. So, true, wind, water and electrons CAN move in only one direction, but gravity DOES move in only one direction. The rock must be lifted with energy other than gravity's acceleration or the motor wouldn't keep running. I don't know what to say. I just don't see it any other way. And these arguements go on forever.

erick - If everthing is created in the Big Bang, why not heat energy too. Perhaps singularities are at close to absolute zero. You would think all that matter together wouldn't exactly be moving around too much.

grimer - I don't know any engineers and can't possibly argue at the levels of education reached by them. But I do live in the home of Bechtel, which is engineer central. But they all tend to be Republicans, so they are pretty well ignored here in SF. I try to read your posts, but you lose me most the time.

[erick]

Everything was created by the Big Bang. Well, not really created but jumbled around into the state that we see and experience as our Universe. All of the energy and matter that exists emanated from it. Since all of the energy in existence was contained within the singularity it was most certainly not at absolute zero...