Impact is the Key

[Grimer]

Thanks for that interesting perspective Grimer. Isn't the reaction force that the wheel is experiencing applied directly to the axle?

Yes, and indirectly to the rim of the wheel.

In which case, it can't cause rotation?

Yes it can, because the impact force is applied at the rim and the effective weight loss at the rim creates a couple with the reaction force at the axle

And should we be able to destroy some of the force of gravity with a bunch of impacts - creating an unbalanced force - then wouldn't the end result just be a decrease in weight of the wheel?

No, it causes an effective weight loss on what is being impacted on the rim, not on the rest of the wheel. It causes a local weight loss, a local destruction of energy in other words.

Ask yourself, what happens to that 90% destruction of KE that pequaide referred to? Where is it lost from?

It is lost locally from the impact region.

Where is it lost to?

The majority is lost to balancing positive and negative strain energy within the impacting bodies. The energy is downsized.

[Fletcher]

Can't remember where just now but Bessler also says [paraphrased] that he didn't need weights - there is no doubt that his prime mover had mass & caused a force he could use, but it appears that it was separate of an OOB system [which would have weights/mass] - so his asymmetrical forces caused torque, with or without weights - does this fit the impact paradigm Grimer ?

[Grimer]

IMO - impact certainly is a major clue - I can't consider anything else from Bessler's clues - but I still see this as a lossy transformation, not a source of energy.

But that is the whole point, isn't it. Impact leads to a loss of KE and that loss gives rise to the couple between the force of gravity and the axle reaction.
(Lord give me patience - No, that's a bit unfair. It is difficult to make such an enormous change in viewpoint - and you are obviously trying hard ).

[Grimer]

Can't remember where just now but Bessler also says [paraphrased] that he didn't need weights - there is no doubt that his prime mover had mass & caused a force he could use, but it appears that it was separate of an OOB system [which would have weights/mass] - so his asymmetrical forces caused torque, with or without weights - does this fit the impact paradigm Grimer ?

In one word, no.

But then for all we know when he said that his wheel didn't need weights (assuming you have remembered correctly and we can rely on the translation) he may have been trying to put people off discovering his secret - or he might have thought, incorrectly, that he could see other methods of achieving the same effect even though he had never actually tried those other methods out in practice.

[greendoor]

"Ask yourself, what happens to that 90% destruction of KE that pequaide referred to? Where is it lost from? "

AFAIK - when pequaide says that there is a 90% destruction of KE, he is asking a rhetorical question, and doesn't believe there is actually any real energy loss. (Pequaide - forgive me if i've misunderstood you). Speaking for myself - that's what I believe. AFAIK - he and I are drawing attention to the stinking pile of BS that has been sold to the public under the guise of 'energy'.

Grimer - i'm wondering if you are still working for the establishment to derail our quest. You did some heavy name dropping a while back, which suggested you were on the payroll then.

You will of course be very aware that in Newton's cradle - if a large ball transfers it's momentum to a smaller ball (like kids playing marbles) - the smaller ball aquires a higher velocity. We know that momentum is conserved, and this basically matches reality in a Newton's cradle. In other words, the real losses are very small. But if you do the bogus Energy calculation of 1/2MV^2, you calculate an Energy gain, by virtue of velocity squaring. This is much harder to fudge or squirm you way out of explaing. When it goes the other way, you can blame heat & sound or majick or whatever - but try to explain a bogus energy gain.

There IS no energy gain - and this would be demonstrated if you used a Newton's cradle with disimilar balls. And the losses are small & gradual. It's just a numbers game - a misapplication of a formula that should only be used in limited circumstances, such as freefall acceleration of a weight.

Velocity squared is an abstraction. No mass can ever travel at velocity squared. And 1/2 is just an Average, applicable in cases where velocity started at zero and accelerated uniformly.

Sorry to raise this again - but you had to ask ... :)

If impact is a source of free energy - please show us a Newtons cradle arrangement that can self sustain ...

[greendoor]

Can't remember where just now but Bessler also says [paraphrased] that he didn't need weights - there is no doubt that his prime mover had mass & caused a force he could use, but it appears that it was separate of an OOB system [which would have weights/mass] - so his asymmetrical forces caused torque, with or without weights - does this fit the impact paradigm Grimer ?

I'm intrigued ... with the concept i'm working on, i've decided that pairs of weights wouldn't be totally necessary either, in theory. They could be replaced with a flywheel, and trade mass for velocity. Maybe that's what he meant ... it's hard to make a machine without mass of some sort, but I guess he was suggesting the basic principle doesn't hinge on the requirement for discrete balanced weight pairs as he appeared to use ...

I still think the input force is gravity, which requires at least one descending weight. But what do I know.

[Grimer]

I have to go out so it will be a quick reply.

There is macro KE energy lost which is what he was talking about. The energy is transformed into micro energy (strain) as I said.

Me working for the Establishment? I love it.
If I hadn't effectively had security of tenure I would have been kicked out on numerous occasions - like the time I got up at a meeting with Lyons, the Director General of a group of research establishments and pointed out that GRC was bound for failure like high alumina cement because it lost all its ductility within 5 years.

If I were black ops I'd hardly mention my connection with government - whereas you - Who the hell are you? I'm not anonymous, I don't hide behind a pseudonym like you do. Anyone can look up Frank Grimer aka Francis Joseph Grimer on the Internet and find out all about me - even my home address.

I think you must be black ops trying to stifle insights which will lead to the success of the the Gravity wheel by throwing sand into the jury's (members) eyes.

[greendoor]

"Yes it can, because the impact force is applied at the rim and the effective weight loss at the rim creates a couple with the reaction force at the axle "

Grimer - do you still believe that every force has an equal & opposite reaction? Wouldn't the normal force exterted from the ground simply modulate to match the impact forces it is resisting? Isn't it just a shock loading on the whole wheel? Wouldn't the impact forces average out?

Maybe you are right - maybe there is some zero point energy or something that flows in somehow - that pushes the whole thing back into the realm of science fiction ...

I would love to see evidence of any simple experiment or toy or whatever that displays a free energy gain from impact ... i'm just not seeing it as anything more than a lossy transfer of motion/momentum/energy.

[greendoor]

"I think you must be black ops trying to stifle insights which will lead to the success of the the Gravity wheel by throwing sand into the jury's (members) eyes. "

Busted!

[Grimer]

Grimer - do you still believe that every force has an equal & opposite reaction?

You're not listening, naughty boy. I keep telling you there is no such thing as force. Force is merely an alias for strain.

Do I believe that every strain has an equal and opposite strain.
No if you measure strains from false stress datums.
Yes if you measure strain as natural strain from the true datums which takes into account the pressure difference between the inside and outside of a material, the pressure differential which holds the material together and gives it its strength and stiffness.

Natural strain entropy's dx/x are equal and opposite in sign but not in direction. The equal and opposite bit is wot Newt recognised instinctively when he gave us "forces are equal and opposite." Unfortunately he didn't see the implications in terms of strain - which is why things acting at near right angles must have been so puzzling when electromagnetism started to be investigated.

Strains are not generally opposite in direction. A longitudinal strain in one phase can be balanced by a lateral strain in the other and normally is when a material is stressed.

The equal and opposite bit can be seem to be an artifact, a fiction even at the macro level of structural analysis.

Suppose you have three struts intersecting at angles of 120 degrees to each other.

Suppose you load one strut.

Where is the opposing force?

There ain't one is there!

The resolution of the two other forces is a mathematical trick and as unreal as the statistician's "average". There is no average man. He is a fiction. And so in the case I have just described is the opposite force.

Forces are manifestly not equal and opposite. Natural strains when measured from absolute stress datums (entropic/ectropic) are opposite, opposite that is in the tensile/compressive sense, not in the directional sense.

Of course if you measure strains from the wrong datum then you will find that the strains are not equal and opposite. If you stress a square inch rod of steel against a square inch rod of concrete then the strain of the steel will be much less than the strain of the concrete cos the steel is much stiffer than the concrete as measured from the false datums of steel and concrete being initially unloaded. To think this is to make the same error as thinking they have the same heat content because they are at the same ambient temperature, the same heat "force" of "zero".

I'd better stop there or you will get mental indigestion if you haven't got it already.

[ovyyus]

Can't remember where just now but Bessler also says [paraphrased] that he didn't need weights...

John Collins Apologia, page 354

"... I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without..."

[path_finder]

Grimer,
Your assumptions regarding the possible role of impact in the PM design is interesting.
But the question of the transfers between the kinetic energy and the quantity of movement is still not clear for me.
On a pure mathematical point of view the coefficient '1/2' is just a corrective coefficient coming from the integration (wich must counteract the coefficient 2 obtained by derivation of the square). I learned a long time ago that the derivation of any function depending of the time must be the final product of the basic derivation of this function regarding the variable itself, multiplied by the partial derivation of this variable regarding the time.
p.e................d(1/2mv^2)/dt = m.v.v'dT where v'=dv/dT (partial derivation)
If (as usually supposed by the mankind) the time has a linear path, v' is equal to 1.
But if the time elapsing function is not linear, what about the value of v' ?
In the case of a elastic collision this function could be an 'echelon', and v' in this case is an 'Dirac' wich can explain the gain. But if the time elapsing path is linear, we gain nothing, we just conserv the energy.

[Grimer]

Grimer,
Your assumptions regarding the possible role of impact in the PM design is interesting.
But the question of the transfers between the kinetic energy and the quantity of movement is still not clear for me.

It's the fog in the channel. The confusions begin at Calais.

[Grimer]

The following posts copied from the "Inertia against gravity" thread have an important bearing on Impact being the Key.

Dear Ovyyus,
Here is one of the numerous references:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... rtal:Clues
What is important is the fact that Bessler never showed the weights to anybody (I red somewhere he just accepted to leave people pulping the weights under a cover)
He only told 'they were cylindrical'
This is the reason I was convinced from my first studies that the secret of Bessler was INSIDE the weights (content, structure, materials,geometry,etc.)

...
On another note, your thoughts on the secret being inside the weights....My wife purchased this huge ball filled with air and sand. This is used for exercising and the sand helps hold it still while doing these. My nephews were over the other night and they were just playing with it, pushing down on it and then spinning it towards each other. It would start out slow, almost stop in mid air and then lurch forward at, what I thought, was an amazing increase in velocity. They were literally shooting this ball back and forth to each other in this way. I've had to work since then, but I do plan to take a better look at this action.
Steve

I think you and pathfinder could well be on to something there. If you read the "Impact is the Key" thread you will see that it is essential that when Mr Gravity knocks his opponent down, he doesn't bounce up again.
In short, that all the impact is absorbed locally and dissipated within the quasi"hammer - anvil".

Now what better way to dissipate energy than a leather cylinder filled with sand - or better still lead shot - and it would be reusable again and again.

I wonder what pathfinder meant by "pulping the weights under a cover". Trouble is, being in Paris his second language, English, ain't too hot.

I must admit that though I saw lead as malleable compared with iron say, I couldn't see how it was going to be sufficiently absorbent of the strain energy. I couldn't see how it was going to be as effective as the illustration I gave of a jet of water spreading sideways as it hit the surface of a sink.

But a leather cylinder full of lead shot, that's a totally different kettle of fish.

So pathfinder's insight could well be spot on.


Also, consider the following passage from page 221 of "Clues from Das Triumphans Perpetuum Mobile".

"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

That bit about "loss of shape" suggests a bag full of lead shot to me.

Does anyone know of any other references which could relate to the innards of the weights?

[AB Hammer]

How about just making the hammers, dead blows.