It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than trying to solely profit

[jim_mich]

Robert,
You paid 4 times too much! Next time go to www.mcmaster.com

I paid 50 cents for 10 feet of .038 inch 1 x 7 strand stainless steel cable. Of course there was shipping charges. And it was part of a larger order. Shipping was $4 for six items so I figure it cost me 67 cents to ship that one piece of wire.

[rks1878]

With all due respect Jim, I think the 19 strand will do a better job, no matter its origin...

The site you posted is a really good one.

[jim_mich]

No argument. I agree that 19 strand would do a better job than 7 strand.

I think braided cord would be even better as it has almost no flexing friction and it's stronger. Although it's a little bit bigger it is much lighter. I bought some at Joanne Fabrics.

[rks1878]

Met a man in the course of my work today, who happens to be a patent examiner.

I asked him about PM, and he said that PM, cold fusion, and a cure for cancer, were several of the "inventions" that the PTO rejects.

Also, that these applications go before a commitee, so as to avoid possible embarassment to the PTO.

A PM application would have to be backed up wth a working device...

[jim_mich]

The patent office will initially reject these inventions. But it also initially rejects most inventions. Getting a patent is a 'process'. You (or your patent attorny) must 'prosecute' to abtain a patent. This simply means you 'negotiate' with the PTO examiner. You give a little. You persuade the examiner so he gives a little. He objects to you saying the energy comes from gravity since standard belief is that gravity is a conservative force. You explain why gravity only acts like a conservative force in most cases but when you do X,Y, and Z then you get excess energy out. You explain where you think this energy comes from. Then you play the ace up your sleave by demonstrating a working PM wheel. Of course your PM wheel would technically NOT be perpetual motion since most define PM as energy output with no input. It would be a 'gravity powered engine' or a maybe a 'zero point energy converter'.

That commitee you speak of can issue a suppression order if they think your PM invention really works and might be harmful to national security. So have all your ducks in a row before you file.

[rks1878]

Jim,

I know, but there are back channels to everything.

I bet that a firm like Finnegan, www.finnegan.com, that has established trustworthy ties to the PTO, would have no problem with the application if they said, "There is a working model. The inventor has actually done it."

I'm sure they could pave the way very easily.

I doubt that a gravity powered wheel would be much of a threat to national security. How could it be?

[rlortie]

Robert,

I doubt that a gravity powered wheel would be much of a threat to national security. How could it be?

It's threat to National security because the oil and fossil fuel industry pays lobbyists mega bucks to wine and dine congressman and senators into passing laws that say it would be a threat.

Thats my story anyway, and I am sticking to it!

Ralph

[AgingYoung]

Jim,

Are you calling gravity energy?

Of course your PM wheel would technically NOT be perpetual motion since most define PM as energy output with no input. It would be a 'gravity powered engine' or a maybe a 'zero point energy converter'.

The randi site had a definition for perpetual motion but they removed it. It was:

The idea that a device, machine, or engine can be designed whereby free energy or work can be obtained simply by setting it into motion has preoccupied inventors for centuries. While “free” power is available through such forces as solar radiation, ocean tides, changes in atmospheric pressure, and flowing water, no device can be constructed that will operate without energy input or that will generate an energy output greater than the energy required to operate it.

It's interesting to see that they've edited their encyclopedia. The italicized assertion has been deleted. I guess randi is rethinking the matter. By randi's former definition a gravity wheel would be perpetual motion (no energy input; gravity is a force)

Gene

[rlortie]

Gene,

The Randi site mentions "ocean tides" and "flowing water". What do you think causes this occurence if it is not work created be gravity? :-)

Gravity is a force that can produce energy, thus accomplish work. Problem is it takes something else to resupply the mass it has moved to create said work. Conservative force Ha! You can only burn wood once, you can only run your car on a tank of gas once. What is the difference?

Ralph

[ovyyus]

The Randi site mentions "ocean tides" and "flowing water". What do you think causes this occurence if it is not work created be gravity? :-)

The Sun.

[Wheeler]

yes gravity is a fuel, and it comes from the sun.

[ovyyus]

Earth's gravity is not a fuel that comes from the Sun.

[rlortie]

Ovyyus,

You just knew someone would take the bait didn't you! :-)

[AgingYoung]

In the water cycle power from the sun causes water to evaporate and then disperses that water in the form of precipitation over a varied topography; some high spots and some not so high. It's not humanly possible to calculate how much energy is used from the sun to get water at what ever point in a stream it finally ends up at. I have no idea where the water comes from that feed mountain springs that are at a very high elevation that constantly flow and feed streams. I don't think it's humanly possible to calculate the energy used to cause these springs to have a source either.

What is possible to calculate is the force of a stream at a given point as gravity pulls that water down hill. That would be the starting point of defining perpetual motion. I don't think that the force of the stream over time (gallons per minute, etc.) can drive a water wheel such that the wheel produces more force over time than it receives. It only captures a part of that force; somewhere less than 100% of the force.

The analogy of a water to a gravity wheel breaks down in the idea of a 'stream'. As far as we know there's no 'stream' of gravity. We have no idea what the source of its force or attraction is. What we know about gravity is that it exerts with monotonous regularity a downward force on a weight as it swings thru its various moments on an arm around an axis. These moments of force are depicted by a sine wave. I'm pointing out the obvious to make this point:

With all the forces (gravity, centrifigual, momentum, etc.) acting on a mass thru it's moments on a moment arm you will not get the weight to swing and arrive back at (much less thru) zero degrees.

If that could happen then instead of the mass starting from a dead stop it would have a little head start. As the velocity accumulated the mass would eventually be spinning so fast it would rip free of its axis. It would look like one of those working model designs. :) As a sidebar I'd like to say that since there are people here with experience with working model this is a good place to post your problems with it. Someone just might have an answer for you. That seems to be the case a lot.

The point of a mass spinning thru its moments is this:

If you can cause a mass to start from zero plus 1/10 of a degree (heading downhill) dropping it and allowing it to fall then if it arrives back at zero with some degree of velocity so that it can round that hill and head back down with some speed you will cause that mass to accelerate to its terminal velocity and you will have achieved perpetual motion.

No one as far as we know (except Bessler) has managed to do that. It's considered impossible. The forces on a mass as it swings around an axis are conserved. It's impossible (so they say) to arrive back at zero degrees with more velocity than you left there with.

My point of all this and my concluding point is this:

The randi organization will never agree to a sensible definition of perpetual motion. You will never collect a nickle from them. On top of that they will give you a bill for their expenses. They'll publish your idea and use it as they see fit and never fail to mention you're the sort of person that won't pay your bills.

A. Gene Young

[ovyyus]

Ovyyus,

You just knew someone would take the bait didn't you! :-)

What bait? It seems that many people consider gravity is an energy source, when it clearly isn't. Gravity acts like a lossless spring and, just like a spring, unless someone can show otherwise, will only deliver back what was initially put in. Why is that a problem?