OMG this is gonna shake things up, but hey thats what I do.
A shattering realisation hit me recently
Besslers wheel had an external power source (Gravity) which for all intents and purposes can not really be gauranteed. IE what if you took a working model up in a space shuttle out of the reaches of Earths Gravitational pull ?
It would STOP.....wouldnt it ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Conclusion No 1. Besslers wheel was a Gravity ENGINE
Conclusion No 2. It had an external power source, a power input, frictional losses, mechanical inefficiencies AND a power output (Mechanical torque), therefore it is an ENGINE, the very essence of an ENGINE.......AND...
here comes the big one.........
Conclusion No 3. it complies with the laws of conservation of energy and does not disprove them.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So it could be said that, although it was an Engine and not Perpetual Motion, it WAS Free energy BUT it was NOT over unity
K what do you all think about that, come on hit me.....
Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Moderator: scott
Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Attempt only the impossible.
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Hey Rip....
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ty+powered
...And this is just one thread about that debate....
Steve
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ty+powered
...And this is just one thread about that debate....
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Yes, this has been discussed many times before; also John discusses it in his book.
The problem is that from everything that science knows about gravity it seems gravity acts like the constant pressure of a spring. There is no extra energy available to do work. Bessler's later wheels were balanced when stationary. They might have been balanced while rotating. In which case they would have been driven by inertial impulse and not from gravity. This would make Bessler's wheels "Motion Motors" since the motive force would have been derived from motion of moving/swinging weights and not from gravity. Even the earlier wheels that were always out-of-balance used the movement of the weights inside the wheel to lift the weights out-of-balance, so they were also "Motion Motors".
The problem is that from everything that science knows about gravity it seems gravity acts like the constant pressure of a spring. There is no extra energy available to do work. Bessler's later wheels were balanced when stationary. They might have been balanced while rotating. In which case they would have been driven by inertial impulse and not from gravity. This would make Bessler's wheels "Motion Motors" since the motive force would have been derived from motion of moving/swinging weights and not from gravity. Even the earlier wheels that were always out-of-balance used the movement of the weights inside the wheel to lift the weights out-of-balance, so they were also "Motion Motors".
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Comparing gravity to a spring is a little unfair. I think it's closer to compare it with magnetism - and the action of magnetism is dynamic - caused by the motion of electrons.
The way you view gravity makes a big difference to your calculations and expectations of what it can or can't do. For example - compare it to water pressure.
Water pressure can be created by static gravity "head" - e.g. if you have a tank of water 100 meters above you, you have 100 meters of head (about 142 PSI). Alternatively, you can use an electric or diesel powered pump that can provide a pressure of 100 meters head. The effect on the water flow is exactly the same - and the end user won't know the difference between static pressure head or dynamic pressure head.
I chose to think of gravity as being dynamic - connected to the "wheelwork of the universe". There are many reasons I believe this - but i'll pick on one that interests me: the fact that objects in free-fall accelerate up to a fixed speed, and no matter how much mass they have, they fall at this same speed. (If you rule out air resistance - parachutes being an obvious exception).
This makes me think of gravity as being like a "river" flowing at a fixed speed - and anything falling into this river gets accelerated up to the speed of this river.
Another fascinating way to look at gravity is as if it is a large downwards escalator (not sure if that's the word you use in your country - maybe travelator - or whatever those moving steps between department store floors are called_. These are powered by heavy motors - and if you step onto one of these, no matter how light or heavy you are, you travel dowwards at the same speed.
A downwards escalator could certainly be design to free-fall with no energy required - but they chose to use electric motors. (Getting back to my distinction between static head and dynamic head).
Could we cheat some "free energy" out of a downwards escalator? Sure we could - because we know that the electric motor will supply the energy we need. We just need some way of attaching our machine so the escalator continuously rotates our machine without moving the machine.
If we stand on the escalator - we assume there is no relative motion between us and the moving floor - because we are getting carried along with it. But if we grab hold of the rails that are stationary - we get shocked at the power behind it. There is enough power to kill people who get stuck on these things.
So how can we design a gravity wheel that taps into this power that is constantly pulling everything downwards ...
The way you view gravity makes a big difference to your calculations and expectations of what it can or can't do. For example - compare it to water pressure.
Water pressure can be created by static gravity "head" - e.g. if you have a tank of water 100 meters above you, you have 100 meters of head (about 142 PSI). Alternatively, you can use an electric or diesel powered pump that can provide a pressure of 100 meters head. The effect on the water flow is exactly the same - and the end user won't know the difference between static pressure head or dynamic pressure head.
I chose to think of gravity as being dynamic - connected to the "wheelwork of the universe". There are many reasons I believe this - but i'll pick on one that interests me: the fact that objects in free-fall accelerate up to a fixed speed, and no matter how much mass they have, they fall at this same speed. (If you rule out air resistance - parachutes being an obvious exception).
This makes me think of gravity as being like a "river" flowing at a fixed speed - and anything falling into this river gets accelerated up to the speed of this river.
Another fascinating way to look at gravity is as if it is a large downwards escalator (not sure if that's the word you use in your country - maybe travelator - or whatever those moving steps between department store floors are called_. These are powered by heavy motors - and if you step onto one of these, no matter how light or heavy you are, you travel dowwards at the same speed.
A downwards escalator could certainly be design to free-fall with no energy required - but they chose to use electric motors. (Getting back to my distinction between static head and dynamic head).
Could we cheat some "free energy" out of a downwards escalator? Sure we could - because we know that the electric motor will supply the energy we need. We just need some way of attaching our machine so the escalator continuously rotates our machine without moving the machine.
If we stand on the escalator - we assume there is no relative motion between us and the moving floor - because we are getting carried along with it. But if we grab hold of the rails that are stationary - we get shocked at the power behind it. There is enough power to kill people who get stuck on these things.
So how can we design a gravity wheel that taps into this power that is constantly pulling everything downwards ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
That is incorrect - gravity acclerates mass at about 9.8M sec/sec. There is no fixed 'flow' speed, gravity provides constant acceleration.greendoor wrote:...the fact that objects in free-fall accelerate up to a fixed speed...
I agree with Jim's analogy - gravity acts like a perfect lossless spring.
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Exactly, Gravity never uncoils.Comparing gravity to a spring is a little unfair.
Love the river analogy, I think I'll go jump in.
Attempt only the impossible.
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Show me a perfect lossless spring that provides constant acceleration - causing objects to increase in velocity ...
OK - I concede that the constant flowing river analogy is probably not right either ... but i'm far from convinced either analogy is anything like the real behaviour of gravity.
I don't think gravity is like a spring. We are perhaps fooled into treating it like a spring ... the energy we use in lifting we can get back as it falls.
Is anyone here arguing that gravity in a vacuum (removing the aerodynamic resistance that causes Terminal Velocity) can accelerate mass up to the speed of light? And if so, why not beyond the speed of light?
Because my defininition of "constant acceleration" would be exactly that. And I don't believe this to be the case.
OK - I concede that the constant flowing river analogy is probably not right either ... but i'm far from convinced either analogy is anything like the real behaviour of gravity.
I don't think gravity is like a spring. We are perhaps fooled into treating it like a spring ... the energy we use in lifting we can get back as it falls.
Is anyone here arguing that gravity in a vacuum (removing the aerodynamic resistance that causes Terminal Velocity) can accelerate mass up to the speed of light? And if so, why not beyond the speed of light?
Because my defininition of "constant acceleration" would be exactly that. And I don't believe this to be the case.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
I agree that Besslers wheel were not perpetual motion.
A goog example could be to make a parallel with the thermodynamic
concept of reversibility.
the concept of reversibility is, IMO, the key of the the bessler principle.
If you put energy in the thermodynamic device, you will get a work ( like
transfering calories from a room to another one). This is the principle
of you fridge in your kitchen.
But , now , if you reverse the cycle ( this is the rankine cycle), you will get
energy.
you can make a search on google about the Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC devices) which runs with the sun ( solar with ORC).This cycle is the exactly opposite of the fridge cycle.
The bessler wheel ,IMO, could works as a reversed device.
If you put the bessler wheel in space, you will get not work.
But if you spend energy into the bessler wheel ( you connect the wheel to an electric motor), you will create gravity inside the wheel
( Centrifugal force is created due to rotation and , due to that, the observer outside the wheel could see that the weights are moving like in a graviationnal field).
As , on earth, we have naturally gravitation, the bessler wheel creates work. (this is the reversed operation).
Such a gravity wheel could be in accordance with the law of reversibility
A goog example could be to make a parallel with the thermodynamic
concept of reversibility.
the concept of reversibility is, IMO, the key of the the bessler principle.
If you put energy in the thermodynamic device, you will get a work ( like
transfering calories from a room to another one). This is the principle
of you fridge in your kitchen.
But , now , if you reverse the cycle ( this is the rankine cycle), you will get
energy.
you can make a search on google about the Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC devices) which runs with the sun ( solar with ORC).This cycle is the exactly opposite of the fridge cycle.
The bessler wheel ,IMO, could works as a reversed device.
If you put the bessler wheel in space, you will get not work.
But if you spend energy into the bessler wheel ( you connect the wheel to an electric motor), you will create gravity inside the wheel
( Centrifugal force is created due to rotation and , due to that, the observer outside the wheel could see that the weights are moving like in a graviationnal field).
As , on earth, we have naturally gravitation, the bessler wheel creates work. (this is the reversed operation).
Such a gravity wheel could be in accordance with the law of reversibility
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
Gravity 101: Observed as perfectly conservative with no thermal loss and applies constant acceleration to falling objects.greendoor wrote:Show me a perfect lossless spring that provides constant acceleration - causing objects to increase in velocity
IMO, the best views are supported by observation :)
re: Besslers wheel NOT Perpetual Motion
No thermal losses? Maybe... every impact creates heat, slide a mass down a incline plane both the mass and the ramp heat up. It could be coming from an atomic level or maybe we just refuse to see any losses. If we admit there are losses, then we have have to come to terms with where gravity gets the energy to resupply it and why we can't draw energy straight from the gravity well.