Real gravity engine can be made:But Not a Perpectual motion machine.

[Unbalanced]

Alan, Thanks for the tips,

You write:

Understand final end position and how it can change.

In my way of thinking, in a perpetual motion, there is no such thing as an "end position."

Written like one on the verge of a runner.

Always good to hear from you my friend.

[eccentrically1]

Why would a combination of unworkable devices work?
If you combine any number or combination of unworkables, won't you just have another unworkable device? I've never understood the logic there.

No, you do not understand. Bessler is saying that you take portions from a number of his drawing. Say you take the weights from one drawing, the levers from another, the cross-bars from a 3rd drawing, and ropes/cords from a 4th drawing. Then you combine together these 4 portions of drawings into something entirely different from any MT drawing. Viola! You have the solution, if you combine them correctly.

The solution consists of components that produce a specific 'movement' of the weights that produces perpetual self-rotation. When the solution is understood, then if what Bessler said is true, you would be able to UN-assemble his wheel and distribute the component parts into a number of MT drawings.

But none of the drawings show the prime mover, the energy source. No combination of drawings' components will work without one. That is the real mystery, not the parts.

[Unbalanced]

ecc writes:

But none of the drawings show the prime mover, the energy source. No combination of drawings' components will work without one. That is the real mystery, not the parts.

Really? I mean come on... Really?

You're killen me here!

There must be one somewhere. Please tell me there's a prime mover some where in there... please.

What about all those balls and chains and wheels and levers and cf and water flowing and avalanches... wait, there's no avalanches, Oh.. I forgot the paternosters sorry... but there must be a prime mover in there somewhere. I haven't been devoting the better part of my sunset years looking in vain... no I will never accept this, you must be mistaken... please look again, more closely this time..

It's just got to be there somewhere...

Wait. maybe there doesn't have to be a "prime mover" maybe just maybe, a conservative force can be a prime mover if only we can arrange all these wonderful pieces just so. No, my bubble remains un-burst but thank you for pointing out just how Unbalanced I just might be

[ovyyus]

But none of the drawings show the prime mover... That is the real mystery, not the parts.

Right on.

[Aman]

Great discussion!
But just want to interfere in between that whichever method we use,please make sure that you make Non-Perpectual machines which work.Perepctual machines won't work.
No,I am not conventional,there are few accepted laws in physics that are proved wrong by latest research.
But no one can go against laws of thermodynamics and newton's laws.

"Real Non-Perpectual Gravity /magnetic engines are 100 percent possible but not Perpectual machines"
Going against newton's laws and 3 laws of thermodynamics means trying to make PMM,which won't work.

Thanks,carry on this wonderful discussion.

It seems bessler made a wonderful contribution for ideas about gravity engines,but we need to use it in a proper way to get the ultimate solution/real working gravity engine.

[AB Hammer]

Aman

I think you are meaning over unity machines are possible, not perpetual machines.

Just another way of saying it.

What you may be missing is that there have bee two different definitions for the use of perpetual motion. Today science says it means eternal/forever. But in the old days when Newton was alive it meant something like repeating action until something stopped it by another force or the breakdown of parts of the machine. The machines that Bessler built ran off of gravity IMHO. So they are gravity powered. A gravity only powered machine changes the understanding of gravity as we know it.

[Aman]

thanks AB Hammer for great information.The question is how I can understand,a persion is talking about which "Perpectual"?Many People are not understanding the reality about gravity engines.

According to today's science,(Wikipedia):

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[Aman]

And there is one more problem,no one at website called "Science Forums" is believing that Gravity engines are possible.I don't know,how to explain them.I tried a lot but these people are psychologically not ready to accept gravity engines!Till now they are simply overlooking the proof I discussed on how Gravity Engines can be made.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6184 ... ntry641817

Moreover Wikipedia is not ready to accept my article about how gravity engines can be made.Inspite of mentioning 5 times that my engine is not Perpectual,the group of 5-6 moderators simply read "Gravity engines"and overlooked my article by deciding to disallow to stay on wiki claiming that since a gravity engine is Perpectual and against laws of physics,your article cannot be accepted and would be deleted.This shows the worst Psychology of today's Non intelluctual people.They simply seat on false high position on Wikipedia and don't accept the reality.I felt as if reality is suppressed.

[AB Hammer]

Amen

Until a working unit is finished and pass evaluations proving the authenticity of it doing what is claimed. Science has a closed ear for it is outside their box of knowledge. Only the few who can think outside their box will even listen at all. Those are who we need to convince the rest of science, for it will cause a minor crises of how they think. ;)

[Aman]

Thanks a lot Hammer,
We are and will try our best to explain the reality to them.
I am making a working model now.
Actually,a working model should be needed for proof only if the machine is based on new theories which are based on assumptions.Since the concept I had explained on wiki and here works only on well known proved and daily used laws of physics and not on new theories with doubtable assumptions which are not proved,my concept should have been accepted as true.But those idiots didn't accepted the proof as if they were blind.

[Unbalanced]

Amam:


Perpetual motion (PM) was widely studied in the late 19th century as it piggybacked the study of thermodynamics that grew out of the advent of steam engines and how to make them more efficient.

As you have mentioned, there are two types of perpetual motion that have been defined. Each type defies the basic laws of physics.

The first definition of PM is the simplest to disprove. This definition of PM describes a continuous process whose energy may be drawn off without the process eventually stopping.

This definition defies a basic law of science, "Energy can not be created or destroyed". When work is accomplished, the energy has to come from somewhere and conversely the energy has to go somewhere.

As an example:

I require energy to lift a heavy ball onto a table; this energy must come from somewhere. I eat food. The food comes from plants. The plants absorb solar energy. Solar energy is derived from nuclear reaction. You might rightly state therefore that I used nuclear energy to lift the ball onto the table.

The energy I used to lift this ball onto the table does not disappear. It is now stored in the ball on the table (as potential energy) and heat. The energy cannot and has not been destroyed.

Any time anything happens we need to ask, “where did the energy come from and where did the energy go?�

Before we design this (first definition) “perpetual motion� machine,
we need to ask, “where will the necessary energy come from, i.e. where is it “created.� If we do not have an answer to this question, then we must assume that its continuous motion is impossible.

For fear of rehashing the obvious I won’t go into the second definition of PM machines where continuous motion is present but no useful work is drawn off other than to state, there is no “breaking even� in this pursuit, for entropy can not be factored out.

Amam, you claim your invention is a “non-perpectual gravity engine� and please (once again) there is no letter “C� in the word perpetual.

Of what use do you anticipate this devise having? Will it be a means of storing energy or perhaps a means of regulating energy? It cannot create energy and still as you claim, “not contradict the known laws of physics.�

If you are receiving a less than warm reception from those you have approached with this concept, it is for very understandable reasons.


I hope you will take the necessary steps to prove beyond dispute that the very robust laws of thermodynamics are invalid as they apply to your devise and then publish your findings as you see fit.

By doing this, you will avoid the ridicule you have experienced on every site on which you have explained this concept, and more over, your praises will be sung to all future generations.

[Aman]

Thanks for the information.According to Ab hammer,in the old days when Newton was alive it meant something like repeating action until something stopped it by another force or the breakdown of parts of the machine.I would say that this is possible and not against newtons laws or laws of thermodynamics,because you can feed/input fuel(gravity/ magnetic power) continuously and convert it into useful electricity contimiously immediately.I think that it's a big misunderstanding that it was against newton's laws.Perpectual devices based on old Defination can be made.The old Defination is not actually against newton's laws.

Secondly, reality is we cannot go against those three laws of thermodynamics and three newton's laws?These laws are verified to be true!So the perpectual devices based on modern Perpectual Defination can not be made(impossible).

Yes,some well known accepted laws of physics are proved wrong recently as I expected because those laws were made on assumptions which were not verified properly as true.But newton's laws and laws of thermodynamics have enough evidences/proofs to proove it right.

I also want to share that I am on a verge of inventing a much advanced Magnetic Gravity engine which is faster and continious.The engine which I discussed on this forum was stopping for a few millisecond intermediately after every few seconds but my new engine will not stop at all,and will run Continiously and does not violate any laws of thermodynamics or newton's laws!

Yes ,I am doing the best which I can to spread the truth with the society but simply one man is not enough.people who understood my concept should educate others.Infact,every persion searching for free energy /PMM/Perpectual should be able to find my forum or my thoughts on Internet and this is possible only when more and more visitors visiting my website spreads about my thoughts by creating more websites regarding my thoughts.
Hence,I am trying to spread about the reality on as many websites as possible.

Unity /collective effort of many people is very important here on a very large scale.And proper explanation like mine is also required,otherwise no one will believe.If majority of the people in unity come against the petroleum industry who suppressed us ,we will throw out the dirty petroleum industry who suppressed green energy inventions.

In future,the king should be common man/public,not petroleum industry.

I tried to include the word C but my apple iPad which I am using auto corrects it as perpetual.Sorry for this.

For me,it is easy to proove that old Defination Perpectual engines can be made and not against newton's laws and laws of thermodynamics

But impossible to proove that new Defination Perpectual engines can be made.

[Unbalanced]

Aman:

First off:

I tried to include the word C but my apple iPad which I am using auto corrects it as perpetual.Sorry for this.

Believe your Ipad's spell checker the word perpetual does not contain a "C".

Secondly:

I am on a verge of inventing a much advanced Magnetic Gravity engine which is faster and continious.

Magnets, not unlike electrical batteries, have a stored energy that is imparted to them from another source. Magnets lose their magnetic energy over time and therefore a motor derived from them (were it possible) will lose its energy over time and therefore should not be considered "continuous."

Thirdly:

I would say that this is possible and not against newtons laws or laws of thermodynamics,because you can feed/input fuel(gravity/ magnetic power) continuously and convert it into useful electricity.I think that it's a big misunderstanding that it was against newton's laws.Perpectual devices based on old Defination can be made.The old Defination is not actually against newton's laws.

The force of gravity, the force of magnetism, and the force of an ideal spring are all examples of what we call "conservative" forces. You can use these forces to store energy by first inputting energy against their influence, and later (in the ideal case) retrieve this energy, less dissipative forces but none of them can ever do any net work.

Again, until such time as you can clearer demonstrate that these are not the facts of nature under which our reality is made, then it is a very good idea not to entertain the idea of:

Yes ,I am doing the best which I can to spread the truth with the society but simply one man is not enough.people who understood my concept should educate others.Infact,every persion searching for free energy /PMM/Perpectual should be able to find my forum or my thoughts on Internet and this is possible only when more and more visitors visiting my website spreads about my thoughts by creating more websites regarding my thoughts.

Because your ideas are not founded in basic science and until you definitively prove otherwise, it is simply not "the truth."

As an aside: Here is a tip that many Ipad users are not aware of:

When you reach the end of a sentence, double tap the space bar and a period and space will be automatically inserted for you.

[Aman]

Might be true that "C" may not be a iPad problem,but I might have misplaced.Don't know how?
Thanks any way.

May be magnets loose their magnetic energy continiously over a very large period of time,but continious engines can be made.(possibility of continuous engines is not ruled out,not against known thermodynamics laws and newton's laws,it is just a misunderstanding with people that it is against this laws).If possible,I will try to give a example soon of how continuous machines are possible.I thought that photons when compress atomic particles, might store magnetic energy in magents.May be this is not right with magnetic energy(not talking of other types of energy,specifically magnetic),because I and many people have not understood the proper process involved there.May be this time I went wrong about continious nature of magnetic energy,but mostly I am always correct about my engine.

There is something called magnetic hysterisis which tells how ,magnetic energy is lost over a very very large period of time(many many years)

[Wubbly]

A-man, before you try to spread the word of your micraculous discovery to all the world, you need to build your machine first and verify it actually works.