PM has no Equal in Nature!

[John Collins]

James, I use the analogy of wind and water for explaining the action of gravity as an energy source for Bessler's wheel, because it helps me at least to understand it. I know gravity has no mass component but in a localised situation it does have a mass component and it's mass components are the weights themselves within the wheel. Gravity acts on the weights and they drive the wheel when they become out of balance. It is possible to get the weights out of balance merely through the action of turning the wheel. The wheel begins to turn spontaneously because the weight are already out of balance. This is all based on what Bessler said and although he was guilty of theatrics/histrionics and subterfuge I do not think he knowingly published any lies, so if he says that his wheel relied solely on the force of gravity, I accept that.

I understand your point of view (and of course I don't take offence at your response to my analogies), but I look at the facts of the Bessler wheel and I must look for an alternative explanation for the use of gravity as the prime source of energy for his wheels. If he used it as he says then gravity must be usable in this way.

My analogies may be inaccurate but I hope that they can help to understand where we might have gone wrong. I'm writing a posting about the use of gravity as an energy source, and I'll try to post it in a few days.

John Collins

[ken_behrendt]

Bill wrote:

Ken, aside from the fact that Bessler never demonstrated an outside working wheel it should be obvious that average ambient temperature has little to do with energy extraction from a thermal gradient.

I think I remember reading that Bessler did, indeed, have plans for his wheels in which they would be located out of doors. For example, he tried to promote them as a way of pumping water out of flooded mines and for use in winter when conventional water wheels were frozen up. If they were really just heat engines and needed a heat gradient to run off of, then I do not see how they could work outside in the winter months. There would not seem to be enough of a thermal gradient in this situation to power a wheel.

It would seem that while you remain "firmly convinced" about your own hypothetical (I might suggest fictitious) mass conversion phenomenon then discussing other ideas with you seems fairly pointless.

No, my beliefs about the mode of operation of Bessler's wheels are not based upon fiction, but, rather, upon the conclusions of 20th century physics, a physics that I consider valid...as far as it goes (remember, Einstein probably was not even aware of Bessler's wheels and did not have the new law of motion yet).

Below I have included a link to a site that gives a good overview of the physics of mass in the light of relativity theory. Of particular interest was a section that solved a problem involving the loss of mass by a weight falling in a gravity field. As the weight drops, it loses rest mass energy, but gains kinetic energy so that the total energy of the weight is constant. The weight is assumed to drop in a vacuum so that none of its energy is siphoned off in the process of pushing atmosphere out of the way.

However, Bessler's 4th Law of Motion assures us that, in any running overbalanced gravity wheel, the average vertical motion of the wheel's rotating weights will always be downward toward the center of the planet's gravity field within which the wheel is located. From this it is a logical conclusion that the energy being outputted by a truly chronically overbalanced wheel MUST come from the rest masses of its driving weights and, in fact, over time, they will become less massive and lighter in weight. At some point, all of the rest mass energy of the wheels weights will be exhausted and the wheel will not longer be able to run.

If one conceives of Bessler's wheels as nothing more than advanced heat engines, then the energy they outputted would not come from the mass of their weights, but rather from their environment and, over time, there would be no change in the mass of the wheel's weights.

I remain confident that, when we finally (hopefully soon!) have working overbalanced gravity wheels, then we will find that their weights are, in fact, losing mass as they output mechanical energy to perform usable work in their environments.


from: http://www.mariner.connectfree.co.uk/Gr ... avity.html

As an example, consider a 1kg mass falling from infinity to the Earth’s surface. The mass of the Earth is 5.97E+24 kg, and gravitational constant ‘G’ is 6.673E-11. Then on the Earth’s surface (at a radius of 6.37E+6 meters from the center) the gravitational force is

F = G.m1.m2 / r2
= (6.637E-11).(5.97E+24).(1.0E+00) / (6.37E+6)2
= 9.81 Newtons

...and the kinetic energy gained is...

E = G.m1.m2 / r
= 6.22E+07 Joules
= 6.91E-10 kg

In other words from the point of view of the remote observer ‘A’ that 1kg mass loses 0.691 micrograms of mass and gains 62.2 MegaJoules of kinetic energy as it drops from infinity to the Earth’s surface.

However, despite my confidence in this approach to understanding overbalanced gravity wheel operation, I do want to remain as flexible as possible. If anybody else has a better way of quantitatively describing just how one of Bessler's wheels could output energy, then let's hear it. If the counter argumentation is strong enough, then maybe I will change my mind about this matter...



ken

[Michael]

James,
mainsteam science doesn't make the mistake off calling gravity energy, that's why it's refered to as gravitational force.

[primemignonite]

* * * * *
It comes from gravity, which is an unequal flow of Ether Energy. The Earth casts an Ether Energy shadow and we perceive it as gravity. This same Ether Energy is perceived as inertia and momentum. It flows is all direction like light. It is the pure force or energy from which everthing in created from.
* * * * *

Jim,

Interesting.

This would be the same 'luminiferous ether' from long ago, now essentially dismissed by the main stream? Wasn't it Einstein who minimized it as a possibility and then later sort of positively re-thought about it? I may be confused about that.

I believe that Dr. Wilhelm Reich's 'orgone energy' was the same thing as the ether, and that he even said so. Have you ever actually SEEN it, Jim? Well, I have and I can assure you that it is real, whatever it truly may be. Most adults cannot any longer, but children CAN and DO, and they will describe it to one quite nicely if not cued on or off about the subject. Dispassionate witnesses to the reality of it, they stand as.

Nicola Tesla accepted the existence and importance of the ether, right? Well, that fact alone would be good enough for me, if so.

This manifestation may well be the source of energy so beautifully exploited by Bessler within his Wheels. Why not?

James

[Thomas]

Hi Jim,

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "It flows is all direction like light." I thought gravity, inertia, and momentum were directional. I assume you mean Ether Energy flows in all directions. I guess I'm confused because of my lack of knowledge on Ether Energy.

Tom

[primemignonite]

James,
mainsteam science doesn't make the mistake off calling gravity energy, that's why it's refered to as gravitational force.

Michael,

Yes! That's what I thought.

They ARE such sticks in the mud, and seemingly without much humor sense, those main-streamers.

James

[ken_behrendt]

There were a lot of problems with the ether concept that, eventually, led to it being dismissed by the scientific orthodoxy. Mainly, it had to have properties that seemed self-contradictory. For example, on one hand, as a medium for the transmission of electromagnetic waves, it had to have extreme rigidity so that it could transmit light at 186,000 miles per second. Yet, on the other hand, it also had to be so tenuous that a large body like the Earth could move through it without having its velocity noticeably slowed. Whenever physical models begin to show internal inconsistencies, that is a sure sign that they are on the way to the scientific scrapyard.

Einstein did pay some lip service to the concept when, after the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment were published, he said that the results of this classic physics experiment did not really prove that the ether did not exist, but only that, if it did, then the inability of the experiment to detect its presence indicated that it could not interact with matter. That being the case, he promptly forgot about the concept and continued with his own, high controversal, warped space-time continuum approach to gravity. In that model, mass distorts the 4 dimensional "fabric" of space and the resulting deformation then tells that mass how to move! I've never liked this model because it reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail. Yet, it has had some success in rationalizing various astronomical phenomena.



ken

[Fletcher]

If one conceives of Bessler's wheels as nothing more than advanced heat engines, then the energy they outputted would not come from the mass of their weights, but rather from their environment and, over time, there would be no change in the mass of the wheel's weights.

Do you see the apparent inconsistency & paradox of this statement Ken ?

In one breath you are describing the energy to turn an unbalanced wheel coming from weights losing mass by having an average downward velocity gradient .. & in the next breath you are saying that if a heat engine provided the force to unbalance the weights in an unbalanced wheel, the mass of the weights in fact wouldn't reduce over time (i.e. no change in mass).

The implication being that the rest mass hypothesis is now no longer valid nor applies simply because it is a heat engine providing the rotational force, yet the weights still travel a displaced orbit (relative to the axle) with an average downward velocity, as you put it, as in your first example.

So following your logic it would appear that if weights can be shifted to unbalance a wheel, by what ever means i.e. heat engine, electric motor, solenoids, magnetics, wind power etc etc (the point being it doesn't have to be OU at all), then simply by virtue of the weights being induced externally to orbit to one side of the axle they will over time NOT loose their mass. But if they move by gravity alone they can't help but convert their mass to energy because of the path they are forced to follow & that so called average downward velocity relationship you champion so much. So it depends on HOW they are shifted & NOT the path they follow then ?

So if I built an unbalanced wheel that used an electric motor or heat engine to shift lead weights, which in turn unbalanced the wheel, & I observed it long enough, I would note the mass of the lead weights would NOT be less. Yet you say if gravity does the shifting there WOULD BE a reduction in mass, even though in both set ups the weights follow the same orbital path & have the same velocities.

You are having a bob each way Ken ! There is no mysterious Quantum World action v's Newtonian Mechanics & Relativity Theory at work here to explain why a gravity wheel would work.

I feel like I am greatly overstating things here & using a sledge hammer to crack a hard nut.

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, Ken is talking about mass/kinetic energy conversion from a special 'constantly falling condition' which must be created within the overbalanced wheel.

In an overbalanced wheel driven by conventional means such as heat, batteries, motors, etc, the weights do not experience any net falling over time, but rather are constantly lifted and dropped within the confines of the wheel - they just move up and down.

Ken is proposing that some specific arrangement of weights can achieve a condition whereby the working mass appears to be constantly falling over time and, therefore, giving up rest mass in exchange for kinetic energy - as it must according to relativity theory.

Ken has good reason to believe that he has defined a legitimate energy source, if not the specific means to harness it. I'm in a similar, although perhaps a little less exotic, situation with my thermal research - searching for a means to exploit a defined energy source.

Ken, given a mechanical solution that satisfies your proposed 'constantly falling condition' then you might be right. Imagine that!

[Michael]

Ken, given a mechanical solution that satisfies your proposed 'constantly falling condition' then you might be right. Imagine that!

Bill I can't imagine that. What Ken is proposing is nothing but a magic trick. It's a rabbit through the hole of a hat, it's one half of the page, it's erecting one wall and calling it a full house. It's only half of a theoretical equation.

[Fletcher]

hmmm Bill .. we have been over & over this. In a closed system where weights start from a position of highest gravitational potential energy, circulate & return to that very same position of highest potential, I can't even begin to imagine how that is any different from going up & down the same distance in a gravity field. What is given is taken back again, exactly, no net kinetic energy or mass gain or loss etc.

Perhaps we should be discussing exactly why scientists say it is only necessary to know the vertical height an object falls when calculating Potential Energy i.e. PE = mgh. It does not matter what horizontal path the weight takes as it falls although intuitively we often think if we can trade height for width we will get something extra for nothing, not so.

[ken_behrendt]

Bill and Fletcher...

Thanks for your excellent observations with regard to my last post.

Basically, orthodox science says that if weights rise and fall through the same vertical distance in a gravity field, then they experience no net change in gravitational potential energy (or rest mass) and can not, therefore output any kinetic energy to their environment. And that, basically, is that...no exceptions allowed.

However, in a running chronically overbalanced gravity wheel, the weights also vertically rise and fall through the same distance in a gravity field and DO continuously output kinetic energy! How can this be possible?

The secret is that the chronic offsetting of the CG of the wheel's rotating array of weights from the wheel's axle creates a situation in which the average vertical velocity of the all of the weights is always downward. As far as gravity is concerned, the weights are continuously dropping and must continuously lose gravitational potential energy (and the rest mass responsible for this) which then shows up as an increase in the kinetic energy of all parts of the wheel. Some of this kinetic energy can, of course, as Bessler demonstrated, be drawn off and used to perform work in the wheel's environment.

In an overbalanced wheel whose imbalance is maintained by the action of a heat engine, the situation is not the same as in a true overbalanced gravity wheel.

In such a wheel, an external difference in thermal energy levels is tapped to provide the energy needed to shift the wheel's weights against the pull of Earth's gravity field. Thus, an external energy source momentary increases the gravitational potential energy (and rest masses) of some of the weights in the wheel. This unbalances the wheel which then converts this added gravitational potential energy (and rest mass) into the increased kinetic energy that the wheel displays.

We see in this case of a heat engine type overbalanced wheel that, over time, the weights inside of wheel never really have to surrender any of their original rest masses in order to provide the energy that shows up as an increase in the kinetic energy of the wheel because that kinetic energy actually comes from the loss of rest masses of the particles in the external source of thermal energy and not from the wheel's weights. This is why the weights in a running heat engine type of overbalanced wheel will not lose any of their own rest masses no matter how long the wheel operates.


Gentlemen, I know that these concepts can seem strange at first. But, the more one thinks about it, the more sense it makes. Although, sadly, this still does not tell us exactly what the mechanism Bessler used was, it, at least, allows us to rationalize how weights moving up and down vertically through the same distance in a gravity field could be able to constantly output kinetic energy.



ken

[Wheeler]

Ken
Can you explain the rest mass a little more?
Can a rock sitting on a log loose rest mass?
Is the loss of rest mass only during a fall?

Also I am really wondering how you decide that you can post things like

However, in a running chronically overbalanced gravity wheel, the weights also vertically rise and fall through the same distance in a gravity field and DO continuously output kinetic energy! How can this be possible?

The secret is that the chronic offsetting of the CG of the wheel's rotating array of weights from the wheel's axle creates a situation in which the average vertical velocity of the all of the weights is always downward. As far as gravity is concerned, the weights are continuously dropping and must continuously lose gravitational potential energy (and the rest mass responsible for this) which then shows up as an increase in the kinetic energy of all parts of the wheel. Some of this kinetic energy can, of course, as Bessler demonstrated, be drawn off and used to perform work in the wheel's environment.

In an overbalanced wheel whose imbalance is maintained by the action of a heat engine, the situation is not the same as in a true overbalanced gravity wheel.

How do you know there is a secret?
There is no known running chronically overbalanced gravity wheel on earth today. Unless you know of one.

You put a strange twist to facts.

[jim_mich]

Gentlemen, I know that these concepts can seem strange at first. But, the more one thinks about it, the more sense it makes.

if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it ??

From Wikipedia ad nauseam ...

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or Argumentum ad infinitum is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, and it is one of the mechanisms of reinforcing urban legends. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. In common usage the statement "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" is often used to allude to the same concept...

From Wikipedia article on Joseph Goebbels ...

The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth

From the The Big Lie talking about Joseph Goebbels...

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51

[Fletcher]

Ken.. here are two drawings (see attachments 1&2)

The first is your hypothetical drawing of chronically displaced CoG; path weights should follow etc for the derivation of your 4th Law & used to explain the trading of kinetic energy for rest mass etc as the energy source for a gravity wheel.

The second is a drawing of an ordinary overbalanced wheel. It also shows the path the weights should follow; the constantly side shifted CoG etc & of course the relative velocities that the weights might achieve if forced to follow this circular orbit. It however is driven by solenoids which are electrically activated to shift the weights so that they follow the same path & have the exact same velocities & performance characteristics as your restmass wheel.

Perhaps you can explain to wheeler why one set of weights in their identical travels will loose rest mass & the other set won't, or is it that they both do because the CoG is constantly displaced to the side of the axle as shown ?