Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[jim_mich]

Somehow cf needs to be turned on and off. If you could make what's creating the cf speed up and slow down, then we might get somewhere.

That's very easy once you know how.

I've done a lot of practical dryruns trying to create cf so that it could be used to unbalance another system of weights.

It seems that people think there must be a primary mover and a secondary mover. This is not what most everyone thinks.


Bill, The inertial effect is observable every time a car crashes. Double the speed results in four times the damage.

I'm fully aware of what thermal energy can and cannot do. In order to make use of thermal energy you need a thermal difference in temperature. An internal compustion engine produces a very high thermal difference. As I said, in order for a wheel to make use of thermal energy there must be a difference in temperature. In order to extract work energy in the quantity demonstrated by Bessler's wheel you need either a big temperature difference or a very large quantity of slightly warmer air. Neither would be available inside an enclosed wheel. Besides, Bessler said his wheels gained energy from moving/swinging weights. Did Bessler lie. If so then Bessler was a fraud and we might as well quit the quest.




PS. Fletcher made a most excellent post on the previous page just a minute or so before I posted. Please be sure to read his post on the previous page

[ovyyus]

Bill, The inertial effect is observable every time a car crashes. Double the speed results in four times the damage.

My statement, "On the other hand, inertia has never been demonstrated as a primary energy source, nor is that effect observable in Nature", is not addressed by your above response. You seem to have overlooked the "primary energy source" part of my statement.

However, your crashing car does demonstrate that the energy invested into the forward momentum of the car is EXACTLY that released at impact (less losses). Perhaps you think that doubling the speed only costs double the energy? I'm sure you know that doubling the speed results in four times the damage because four times the energy has been invested.

Jim, I have no idea how you can come to propose inertia as a primary energy source when every experiment demonstrates that it isn't. Just as with gravity, the force acts entirely conservative. Sorry, your position just doesn't make sense to me at all.

In order to extract work energy in the quantity demonstrated by Bessler's wheel you need either a big temperature difference or a very large quantity of slightly warmer air. Neither would be available inside an enclosed wheel.

Bessler's wheels were not enclosed, Wolff reported slits at the rim.

Besides, Bessler said his wheels gained energy from moving/swinging weights. Did Bessler lie. If so then Bessler was a fraud and we might as well quit the quest.

Bessler said a lot about the weights that overbalanced his wheel, but nothing about the prime mover. Therefore Bessler didn't lie but he was economical with the truth - as was his right. So, by you're logic you're saying that if the wheel isn't driven by CF then Bessler was a fraud and we should give up :(

[wikiwheel]

.....Annnnd that brings things back to the latching mechanism, or so it seems.....good stuff here, really....


Steve

Right.
The wheel was run by cf no doubt, as jim says, but there needs to be somewhere a break in the progression of events inside the wheel for cf to do its job.

"the cat creeps along and catches nice juicy mice" (a ratchet and pawl) ratchet teeth= mice, pawl= cat

"the shotgun shoots" something, a force, is released, at a specified time

If there is not a break in the action, then all the motions just slide into and out from each other and it goes nowhere...


Mik

[evgwheel]

In defense of gravity as a stand alone energy source.
We all (mostly all) except that gravity reacts on objects in a straight down motion and any deviation of that is only a compromise.

Movement of on object in a horizontal plain with minimal friction takes very little energy as gravitational pull acts straight downwards over the whole object.

So imaging a piece of ice on a horizontal warm steel plate (example only to reduce friction) is placed up against a solid wall and a wedge is put in between the wall and the ice the ice will move by the gravitational pull to the wedge. The lateral movement is supplied by gravity.
The wedge will move (fall down) when turned 180 degrees (or before) and another wedge on the other side of the ice will do its work.
To me that is different then a downward slope or ramp and gravity alone does the work. Do not forget I’m a dabbler forever.

[ovyyus]

evgwheel, the force acting sideways upon the ice is obviously the result of the falling wedge mass. The ice will be driven sideways by the mass of the wedge dropping under the influence of gravity. But how did the wedge get there?

Of course, when YOU place the wedge in it's start position, the energy which drives the ice sideways comes from the effort of your lift, which is fuelled by your corn flakes, which are made from corn grown from the energy from our Sun, which is driven by thermonuclear reactions, which are... I suppose we don't really need to know where corn flakes ultimately come from in order to see that if we stop eating them then we can only lift a limited number of wedges :P

[evgwheel]

Thank you for the quick introduction on how to become a corn farmer and a nutritional expert. Much appreciated

[ovyyus]

:D

[John Collins]

That's better, I was beginning to think there would be no responses to my post. Unfortunately (for you, but not for me) I'm away in Spain for a few days and out of reach of the internet so I shall have to respond when I return. Thanks guys. I'm off to the airport now...

JC

[Wheeler]

Another post and Im gone from JC

Maybe a private consultation with Bill before you put this topic up would of been a good idea.

Here is what you forget in your theory.
You must have a way to put a weight up before you can let it drop and do work.

I know you are not able to read while your away,but when you get back show us some tests.

Show us one example for fun and science.

[daxwc]

I found this on the internet awhile back can't remember where:

Consider a helicopter. It uses energy to stay motionless above the ground. It is said to have potential energy. If it drops out of the air, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Guess what. It takes a fixed rate of energy to stay in the air for any amount of time, yet it always has the same amount of potential energy. It has the same potential energy after 10 hours as it had after 1 minute. Yet it uses 600 times as much energy in 10 hours as 1 minute. This occurs because gravity creates and destroys energy. Physicists deny that any such thing occurs

.

Now, I do not exactly agree. To say gravity creates energy is like saying a river creates water. IMO it is just part of a larger system, but energy is flowing one way into gravity well. Figure out how to tap into the energy flowing by or get into well or backside of the system. What is the backside of the system? Doesn't gravity have to use energy to keep everything pulling down even at rest?

[rlortie]

daxwc.

The helicopter analogy I do believe is mine, the wording has been changed a little from the original.

I posted it a number of years ago in a forum discussing magnets. A magnet stuck to the side of a fridge is said to do no work. a helicopter hovering in one place is not moving, so not unlike the magnet it is not doing any work!

It sure does use a lot of energy to create force not to do any work.

Ralph

[Michael]

Ralph there is mass consistently being propelled away from a helecopters blades. Provable. There isn't mass being propelled away from a magnet on a fridge. Or if you know different please elaborate. Besides the sheer fact that a magnet on fridge doesn't loose it's field and a helecopter needs a constant supply of gas says it all.

[rlortie]

Michael,

No need to elaborate, you have made my point! :-)

Ralph

[rmd3]

When forces acting on an object sum to zero, the net work is zero - not the total energy expended. That does not mean no energy is being used. Whether two people play tug-of-war or two hundred, if the tension in the rope isn't moving, the forces sum to zero - but different amounts of force are being applied and different amounts of energy are being used.

If another helicopter is on a hill (engine off) next to the one in the air, and both are at the same height relative to some reference ground level, isn't the hill providing a force to counter the pull of gravity? Did gravity stop working because it saw the helicopter on the hill? If the object under the force of gravity isn't moving, there is a counter force. Isn't this the idea of the normal force? But the helicopter isn't moving - so the sum of the forces is zero - is energy expended?

The helicopter in the air provides the counter force to gravity - but the sum is zero, and energy is being expended.

Does it matter knowing where those forces are to show that the energy expended for holding up the helicopter is being done?

I agree with Ralph - I think the magnet is analogous to the helicopter on the hill.

The sum of forces through time are what seem to matter.

-Randall

PS. Are helicoper blades like fans (pushing mass)? or like airplane wings (creating a pressure difference
due to the air flow above and below the baldes creating lift)? In either case, Michael, given the tug-of-war concept, it wasn't clear to me how moving mass matters to the expending of energy. Clearly, we can expend energy and do no net movement... just look at all the PPMs created. Hmmmm....
maybe this quest for PPM is the PPM!

[Jim Williams]

John Collins and Fletcher

Something you are both holding in common is that there exists gravityless space, yet anywhere starlight can be seen means gravity from such stars is also present. Unseen stars still have gravity affecting space as well.

You are drawing conclusions from a hypothetical space that doesn't exist in nature.