Definition of "Gravity is conservative" ?

[ovyyus]

Doe's anyone actualy think that Newton's Laws , on gravity being a conservative force , would be thaught in school's today if Bessler would have sold his wheel?

Yes, why not? Newton's laws are based on sound experimental observations.

Bessler never said his wheel was powered by gravity. When trying to solve a mystery the first mistake is usually to make an assumption in support of a belief.

[Fletcher]

Ditto !

[jim_mich]

Ditto!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

For those that believe that Gravity is a Conservative Force, you are welcome to that belief, I for one do not believe it is!

Trevor, how do you reconcile your personal belief when every experimental observation shows that gravity acts conservatively?

When I drop a hammer on my toe it only hurts as high as I lift the hammer :)

Hi Bill, every experimental observation? not some of the ones I have seen, if you are looking at the MT drawings I can understand your stand point, you should cross the road more often you are wearing out the same paths : )

Edit, Bessler's wheel was just one experiment that was ignored by Newton! the Universe is perpetual motion driven by gravity, mostly, our am I wrong? where do you think the universe gets its energy from? I believe most of the energy comes from its own mass, producing constant forces ( Gravity ) making kinetic energy, there are other factors but for the best part gravity is the prime mover!

Edit, So if you are looking for Perpetual Motion, Gravity would be a good place to start.

[KAS]

Trevor wrote:

"where do you think the universe gets its energy from? I believe most of the energy comes from its own mass, producing constant forces ( Gravity ) making kinetic energy, there are other factors but for the best part gravity is the prime mover!"

As far as I understand it; there is no evidence that gravity produces constant energy in the universe; Velocity does at a rate of 1/2MxV^2 = KE or in other words, the universe is alive with Kinetic Energy

Mass, speed, and of course time produces the energy. = E MC^2

If a mass is travelling through space and is deflected by a larger mass, both attract the other relative to their mass and both are probably moving depending on the reference frame. the attraction causes friction which converts some of he KE into thermal energy.

Perhaps it's this energy conversion that confuses some into thinking that gravity is the energy source.

This is what we profess to know!

The first one to achieve a continuously rotating system in a gravity field will blow all this apart.

Kas

[ovyyus]

Hi Bill, every experimental observation? not some of the ones I have seen...

Trevor, which experiments have you seen? Be specific.

Always happy to beat a different path if there's something real to it.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Bill,

There is the Multi Lever Phenomenon path wherein the multi levers fall on both side of the wheel and there leverage is tapped to drive the wheel the levers are in a state of counter balance on each side of the wheel, when a fallen lever is rotated 180 degrees it find it self in a raise position and falls again, thus a near balance rotation and geometry resets the levers, the best use of this is where the levers are mounted transverse on the wheel rim using modern Hydraulic systems. You can believe it or not that is up to you. The above and the Geo Genny is all about obtaining good leverage at low energy cost, system efficiency, these are better paths than the ones used to form the conservative force of Gravity theory. You can read more on my website, www.real-free-energy.co.uk this site is not my complete works and needs up dating.

Regards Trevor
Edit, spelling.

[ovyyus]

Trevor, your theories and builds to date all seem to confirm gravity conservation. That is why none of them are able to do continuous work and/or drive themselves. You have consistently failed to show any excess energy output from your so called multi lever phenomenon. Surely that must give you pause for thought?

What you need is one simple experiment that shows an exception to the gravity conservation rule. Just one. Believing it is possible doesn't make it so. Particularly when there's real work to be done right now.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi bill,

I thanks for your input,

You are right that a lot of my past designs did not work but it was not that it was Gravity being a conservative force that stoped them, it was because they where crap designs, so was it crap experiments that lead to the belief that Gravity is a conservative force, do you know looking at the PM designs of the time I believe it most have been, a belief based on crap, and reinforced by crap, no thanks! I will call it the force of Gravity, whats wrong with calling it the force of gravity anyway, or do people need to call it something else to claim that PM does not exist, a bold statement from someone standing on a PM planet I would say!


I will not build the multi lever design unless I can build it how it was intended, I am very happy with the balance in the system of 32 levers I built, and my follow up experiments, it is a genuine discovery, but it does require multi levers and they need there leverage to be tapped and stored, I see no way to simplify this, I want it to be built with hydraulics, I think it would be stupid to look for the Multi Lever Phenomenon with anything less than multi levers, I have done as much as I can with this, given my budget, in time it will be built it but not before the Geo Genny.

I think I will stick to my own thoughts about the name the Force of Gravity is called because I have done my own experiments, I do belive that if I start to think of Gravity as a conservative force like others, It will close my mind, and I might even start to use it as a excuse for my own failures!

Regards Trevor

[Grimer]

... Please define clearly what is meant by "Gravity is conservative".

In his Road to Perpetual Motion Hans von Lieven writes

"Now we all know that the objective in an unbalanced wheel is to keep the centre of gravity to the left or right of the point of rotation. This is impossible to do in a closed system. That is why science says perpetual motion is impossible."

But if you send energy outside the system to a torque strain energy store then you don't have a closed system anymore. The strain energy in a torque tube is quite independent of the gravitational potential of that tube. In other words the gravitational energy doesn't change however the tube is moved about in a gravitational field.

So one can take energy out at one point and bring it back at another as I describe in the Conservation of Jerk thread.

[ovyyus]

...the system of 32 levers...I see no way to simplify this...

Isn't that like saying the only way to prove the fundamental energy principle of an internal combustion engine is to biuld a 32 cylinder engine when all we really need is a teaspoon of fuel and a match?

I do belive that if I start to think of Gravity as a conservative force like others, It will close my mind...

Yes, there is always that risk. However, there is also no excuse for ignoring sound experimental evidence because of personal insecurities. That can also lead to a closed mind.

[path_finder]

So one can take energy out at one point and bring it back at another as I describe in the Conservation of Jerk thread

The torsion bars are not the only mean to do that job.
A pulley and a belt also are independent from the gravity field, and they can transfer the energy elsewhere. A pandora box also.
But I agree with your excellent idea to share a torsion bar between two flywheels.

[murilo]

... Please define clearly what is meant by "Gravity is conservative".

In his Road to Perpetual Motion Hans von Lieven writes

"Now we all know that the objective in an unbalanced wheel is to keep the centre of gravity to the left or right of the point of rotation. This is impossible to do in a closed system. That is why science says perpetual motion is impossible."

But if you send energy outside the system to a torque strain energy store then you don't have a closed system anymore. The strain energy in a torque tube is quite independent of the gravitational potential of that tube. In other words the gravitational energy doesn't change however the tube is moved about in a gravitational field.

So one can take energy out at one point and bring it back at another as I describe in the Conservation of Jerk thread.

BANG!
8)

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

...the system of 32 levers...I see no way to simplify this...

Isn't that like saying the only way to prove the fundamental energy principle of an internal combustion engine is to biuld a 32 cylinder engine when all we really need is a teaspoon of fuel and a match?

I do belive that if I start to think of Gravity as a conservative force like others, It will close my mind...

Yes, there is always that risk. However, there is also no excuse for ignoring sound experimental evidence because of personal insecurities. That can also lead to a closed mind.

Hi Bill,

Bill I tried I really did sorry you do not see it, sound experimental evidence that is something that cannot be proved wrong, well in that case I for one have not ignored it just questioned it as my findings have brought it into question, for me at least.

Will you at least agree the our planet has been in a state of perpetual motion for millions of year, and that Gravity has play a big part in keeping it that way, I would like to know where you stand on this.

With respect Trevor

[ovyyus]

Will you at least agree the our planet has been in a state of perpetual motion for millions of year, and that Gravity has play a big part in keeping it that way, I would like to know where you stand on this.

Our planet has been in motion for millions of years, that seems fairly obvious (unless you believe a deity created it less than 10000 years ago). But is it in a state of perpetual motion? I would say not. At least not the PM we're discussing.

If we spin up a massive gyroscope and set it free in space it might continue spinning for many millions of years because losses acting against it's motion are very small. But eventually, without further input, it will slow down and stop as it's stored momentum is eventually spent driving those very small losses over very long periods of time.

A large mass that can stay in motion for a very long time might seem like an example of perpetual motion when it is actually an example of a conservative system restrained by very small losses acting over a long period of time.

Bill I tried I really did sorry you do not see it...

See what? Please be specific.