Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[Deven]

Sorry for double posting, but I'd like to add a few more things.

What I think is a great example of gravity doing work, is when NASA launched the probe to Saturn's moon, Titan, it used other planet's gravitational fields as slingshots to increase its speed to make it to its destination. Does this violate conservation of energy?

No, it does not! And the reason why, is that the planet loses that equal amount of energy that it gave to the spacecraft. However, we used the gravity of something from a different point of reference to do work! We never had to work against these planets gravitational field in order to get our energy, like we do at the surface level at earth.

The implications of this (I believe) is that in order for a gravity wheel to work, there must be an equal and opposite reaction. I've said this before, but it could be a shift in the earth's center of gravity, it could be a weakening of its overall field while doing this work, or it could be a strengthening on the opposite end, or it might be something completely different. Conservation of energy simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, gravity wheels do not have to violate this.

[John Collins]

Sorry about the numbering of the conclusions, Bill, I'll sort that.

I knew you'd disagree with my argument because you have stated more than once that you don't believe in a gravity-only solution, which is fair enough. But I still think that Bessler said or implied that gravity-only was used and therefore I am searching for a way to accommodate that fact.

I have read the arguments before about where the wind and water originate from affects the argument and I say again as I have said countless times before, I am writing about localised effects. It doesn't matter where they originate from any more than it matters where gravity originates from, all that matters is the effect locally.

I cannot see how it is possible for gravity to act like spring. Yes you can restore potential energy by recompressing the spring, but it is not a force of any duration. It has a discernible end. Gravity, wind and and water flow do not have a discernible end.

Bessler's wheel is the perfect example of an experiment that demonstrates gravity acting as a primary energy source .

John

[Jim Williams]

I ended up finding Bessler's wheel because of Pat No 5,009,069 which claims to circumvent the Second law of Thermodynamics, which it doesn't. The outside energy which makes it work, the same as with wind and water power, is the sun. Wind and water power cannot be localised away from that primary energy source. As was pointed out, your Conclusion 3 doesn't take into account heat energy.

[John Collins]

OK. You all seem blinkered to me but I guess its me who's blinkered. I disagree with you Jim, but if you cannot see the effect as localised then I'm on my own. Of course I know what causes the wind and water power and I knew that this would happen when I wrote my piece, but I'm always hopeful that some one somewhere might support me

I'm satisfied that only gravity operated Bessler's wheel and as far as I know no-one has come up with a convincing expalnation of an additional source of energy to help gravity. Forget ambient temperature its a non-starter and forget CF too, thats even more unlikely.

John

[Georg Künstler]

Hi John,
you are right, gravity wheels don't violate the laws of physic. Physic covers it with the formulars for parametric oscillation.

There are 3 ways to get more energy during a swing.

1. shorten the distance between a swing

2. accelerate, deaccelerate during the swing

3. use rolling eccenterweights and the movements can be done with, or against gravity.

the future has begun

Georg

[daxwc]

John,

I like most of your thought process and theory. I also think it is important we all not think alike. It is the problem with this whole issue already is that everyone is brain washed from society on gravity as a usable energy source. It will be the people who look where others fear to tread that will find it. Myself I try to keep an open mind to every thing from a vortex in the gravitiational field , ether, or using the magnetic field to help. It will be the people who think laterally that will prevail. The people stuck just saying "NO" will find just that. The people who get their hands dirty!

I am myself one of those people who are even embarassed to be looking for a solution. Wonder if anybody has lost a job or been looked down upon because they believe a gravity wheel actually existed??? When anybody asks about my wheels I always say I am testing... not exactly a lie ;)

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

The thought 'gravity is energy' has been around for a while. Any hypothesis that predicts an outcome will have a better chance of being taken seriously. jmnsho

[ovyyus]

...I am writing about localised effects. It doesn't matter where they originate from any more than it matters where gravity originates from, all that matters is the effect locally

John, you can't say you're writing about localised effects and then argue that it's not PM because gravity originates external (non-local) to the wheel. If you don't consider the origin of the force, whether it be gravity, wind or water, then you'll support the idea that a book falling from a table can do work for free.

Bessler's wheel is the perfect example of an experiment that demonstrates gravity acting as a primary energy source.

Bessler's wheel is clearly the perfect example of a mystery. Therefore, premature conclusions of what it was or was not can only be based upon personal speculation. I don't think it's useful to suggest speculation as fact.

It is the problem with this whole issue already is that everyone is brain washed from society on gravity as a usable energy source.

Using that argument to account for failure betrays the current situation that there is no demonstration or observation in Nature that might support the idea that gravity can act as a primary energy source. The failure doesn't result from want of looking or from lack of blind faith. IMO, there are enough rogues in the World who will go out of their way to think and act differently from the norm - look around :D

[Fletcher]

John .. I see that you have some supporters for your hypothesis & that's good. Equally there are some who do not embrace it in the same way, who have tried to explain their positions, & that's good also.

I've taken some time to go thru your document & answer you questions [possibly rhetorical] & also give real world observations where I can, that I have experienced or thought about, that sometimes support your arguments & sometimes do not. It is not personal in any way & is intended as my objective [hopefully] analysis & commentary about your thoughts on the matter.

At the end of the day perhaps there will be a way forward by a melding of a cohesive 'whole of world' picture from both sides of what actually happens with gravity & force in relation to a gravity wheel.

I have taken your lead & examples & tried to counter with equally rational examples & arguments without resorting to quoting ad nauseum physics formulas & math as I don't believe they actually help with any greater depth of understanding [we just get used to them].

I have snipped some of your commentary but hopefully left in the important bits in. I will post some of it up later today as I finish it [quite busy right now] which will probably have to be in pieces as there is a word & post restriction per day on this board.

You are of course free to make counter criticisms or provide better examples that more accurately demonstrate the facts, as you see fit.

I don't expect to sway you or others with any epiphanies but who knows :) Just get the thoughts going.

[jim_mich]

I see a lot of errors in John Collins' presentation and logic. I don't have time to work my way through them point by counter point right now. Maybe next week since I leave tomorrow on a business trip. Also when John excludes CF by saying, "and forget CF too, thats even more unlikely" he excludes a possible non-linear source for the forces that might power a wheel. Gravity is linear. This is well established. As such gravity alone cannot power a wheel. This is well known. This is why PM people are considered crack pots. We will continue to fail if we search ONLY for ways to move weights around trying to produce an unbalanced wheel using only linear gravity. We must search for ways to cause unbalanced forces that then move the weights around. Excluding unlikely things such as thermal and air pressure variations we are left with only one possibility. That possibility is inertia. Bessler said that movement/swinging gives his wheels energy. CF is just a word that describes a subset of inertia. Inertial forces are NOT linear. They change according to the square of the speed of an object. Inertial force is the only force that is available to move weights out of balance. I can't make it any more plain without divulging complete details of how to do it.

John, if your main objection to using CF is your failure to understand how one weight can move another weight back inward against CF, then you are wrong in excluding CF. Using CF of one weight on a wheel to move another weight back inward is extremely easy. If you're willing to keep my ideas confidential until I have time to finish building my prototype wheel then I can show you how I believe a working wheel can be built. Simply email me. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course building a prototype wheel seems to always get delayed.

[wikiwheel]

Jim,

I've done a lot of practical dryruns trying to create cf so that it could be used to unbalance another system of weights.

The problem is, that in a rotating wheel, cf pegs everything down tight, just like gravity does a book on a table. It is non-linear getting up to speed, but then once there, it is linear just like gravity. Cf is artificial gravity anyway.

Somehow cf needs to be turned on and off. If you could make what's creating the cf speed up and slow down, then we might get somewhere.

Mik

[bluesgtr44]

.....Annnnd that brings things back to the latching mechanism, or so it seems.....good stuff here, really....


Steve

[ovyyus]

Excluding unlikely things such as thermal and air pressure variations we are left with only one possibility. That possibility is inertia.

Thermal energy is a demonstrated source of power, observable in Nature everywhere. On the other hand, intertia has never been demonstrated as a primary energy source, nor is that effect observable in Nature. Which is the more unlikely? Jim, believe me when I tell you I want you to be right :)

[daxwc]

Using that argument to account for failure betrays the current situation that there is no demonstration or observation in Nature that might support the idea that gravity can act as a primary energy source.

OVYYUS: I don't understand this argument? I do not see the wheel used in nature. I haven't seen nature going to the moon. I don't see atomic theory used in nature or even black holes. Lots of things I do not see in nature before man creates it or recognizes it. Is not man a function of nature?

I do see the moon revolving around the earth. I feel gravity aways pulling. I see gravity destroying energy or at the very least taking it away... Where does it go? How do we get some of it back?

[Fletcher]

Part 1. My opinions in Blue.

A Hypothesis

We have three problems in accepting that gravity wheels can supply our energy needs. They are: -
1) They are said to break the law of conservation of energy.
2) Gravity is a conservative force and as such cannot be so used.
3) Gravity wheels won’t work because the path of a falling weight is not necessary for calculating the amount of work done by gravity in making it fall, and therefore creating different paths for rising and falling weights does not achieve a mechanical advantage to one side of the centre of gravity.

These so-called ‘problem’s can be overcome and can be explained with simple logical argument. The end result is that there is no violation of any of the physical laws that govern us.

Perpetual motion machines and gravity wheels.

Definition of a perpetual motion machine; a machine which once having been started continues to run with no further input of energy. Such devices are described as isolated systems. The term perpetual motion, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, it is usually applied to a device or system that stores or outputs more energy than is put into it. Perpetual motion machines are mostly of a mechanical kind and are designed to sustain motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance. Mainstream physics teaches us that such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created nor destroyed, and it is therefore deemed impossible because it would have to generate more energy than it consumed; in other words it would have to create energy.

In order to produce motion, perpetual motion machines must generate some additional energy to overcome friction, thus even if the machine were able to generate the same amount of energy as was initially input, it would eventually come to a stop, as part of the energy available to make it move was used up in overcoming friction. Add in the necessity to do work as well and it becomes obvious that such isolated systems will not run continuously.

Bessler’s wheel was, according to the inventor - and from circumstantial evidence - driven by gravity. It was, therefore, not a perpetual motion machine because it did not fulfill the requirements of such a machine. For it to work it must have derived its energy from an external source, i.e. gravity [and/or something else]. This becomes clear if we imagine the same machine in the gravityless conditions of outer space, where the machine would remain stationary due to the lack of gravity. [we don’t know that it wouldn’t work in space clear of gravity ?] Having an external source of energy would therefore not lead to a violation of the law of Conservation of Energy because unlike a perpetual motion machine, the gravity wheel might output less energy than was put into it, some being lost in doing work, such as overcoming friction and driving other machines and yet still be able to draw on an inexaustable supply of energy - gravity.

That is correct. There must be an ambient fuel source from the immediate environs that is in turn depleted to make that energy available to the wheel i.e. doesn’t contravene the ‘Conservation of Energy Law’. This continuous supply of fuel has to be replenished from environmental reserves – whatever that ultimate energy source is. For the purposes of considering only local effects influencing a gravity wheel I am not addressing the wider picture of where did this energy originate in the first place.

Conclusion

So even though, in physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, this does not apply in the case of a gravity wheel because a gravity wheel is not an isolated system.

I agree that in a ‘whole of world/universe’ concept there is no addition or depletion of energy – just a change from one form/state to another. Locally though [the wheel environment] to the appearance of a bystander there would appear to be an addition of energy into the system.

Mainstream physics says that gravity cannot be used in this way in a gravity wheel because gravity is a conservative force.

In summary then the energy of an object, which is subject only to a conservative force i.e. gravity, is dependent upon its position and not upon the path by which it reached that position. Forces that store energy in this way are called conservative forces.

Despite these clear statements about conservative and non-conservative forces, it is apparent that in fact they do not show the whole picture. For example take two slides of exactly the same size and proportion, but one slide has a surface of polished metal and the other has one of smooth but untreated wood. A small block of wood placed on the metal slide takes one second to fall from the top to the bottom of the slide. The same piece of wood takes two seconds to fall from the top to the bottom of the wooden slide; this is due to the increased friction on the wooden slide. Gravity expends the same energy in making two identical objects fall through the same vertical distance, but it is clear that it must apply its force for longer during the fall on the wooden slide and therefore might be deemed to have expended more energy. [No energy was expended – just changed from PE to KE & heat etc].

However, we only require the mass of the falling object and the height of the vertical drop to calculate the work done by gravity, and not an element of time.

PE = mgh – gravity force acts in the vertical plane only [the y co-ordinate] – it has no lateral component – just vertical component – e.g.1. trajectories of cannon balls shot horizontally fall the same vertical height over horizontal distance regardless of the amount of initial acceleration they receive as dropping an identical cannon ball from the same height. e.g.2. you cannot jump a wider gap between building if you jump from a high one to a lower one.

You must provide additional force to move an object sideways/laterally & back again to the same x co-ordinate. In the case of the block of wood on a slide, gravity provides a vertical vector component – the slide surface pushes back with an equal force but perpendicular to the angle of the slide – sum the vectors to get the resultant force vector which does have lateral component but is compromised by a slower rate of acceleration of the wooden block & thus it has less KE & ultimately less momentum – the difference being the losses to frictional heat & windage etc.

That ‘time’ is not necessary to our calculations is shown by the fact that we might, for instance, increase the friction on the wooden slide to the point where the block of wood barely moves and takes half an hour to fall the full vertical distance; the formula to calculate how much work was done remains the same. We could go further and say that the friction is so great that the wooden block does not move, in which case we have the same situation as any stationary object. It seems obvious that gravity is still applying pressure to the block of wood on the slide, but friction is applying an equal and opposing force preventing the block from falling and yet according to another definition, no work has been done because there was no movement. We cannot take into account ‘time’ otherwise we would have to apply it to all stationary objects – and time is infinite.
At what point do we say that gravity is no longer doing ‘work’? It should, I suppose, be when the object ceases to move, but perhaps the object is still moving, albeit so slowly as to be undetectable over a period of a week or so. [A pane of glass is a liquid & can take 40 years plus to flow down & thicken at the bottom measurably ! Was gravity doing any work at all ? Or was the amount of work gravity did far far greater because it took so much longer to slump down the height of the pane over that extremly long time ?] I feel that an element of commons sense is applicable here. It seems quite obvious that gravity is still applying a force to hold everything down on the planet even if we require movement to measure it. [Yes, it is applying force but the planet is pushing back with equal force so it’s a stalemate – “for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction�].

Is it true that gravity does no work unless it moves something? [Yes – that’s true using the physics definition of work done. The same applies for other conservative forces such as magnetism.] Gravity is described as a conservative force. A definition of force is as follows: - “When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object. There are three key ingredients to work - force, displacement, and cause. In order for a force to qualify as having done work on an object, there must be a displacement and the force must cause the displacement�. Is this definition of force correct? Do we truly believe that gravity is not expending energy just because it is not moving an object? [Gravity is a field – a gradient of potential.]

We have been taught that gravity does no work on stationary objects because they are not displaced. Yet if gravity was not doing ‘work’, nothing on this planet would be held down and we should all fly off into space!

There is an equal force opposing gravity – it is called weight – it is made up of about ½ percent CF’s at the equator & the rest by muscular, molecular & skeletal resistance [force] to the force of gravity – this is continually renewed by chemical reactions in the body, burning calories i.e. joules & molecular forces.

We shall return to this question. But in my opinion the implication is clear, whether something is moving or not, gravity is ‘working’ on it all the time. Time is not needed for the calculation because gravity is constant and continuous and the amount of work it does is the same for both slides in all circumstances regardless of whether it actually moves anything. The reason why we calculate the amount of work done when gravity moves an object, is because we need to see gravity ‘moving’ something in order to measure its effect and it helps us understand it. Maybe we should apply the same common sense to the definition of force. Yes it needs to move something in order for us to be able to measure it, but to say that it is not acting just because other forces are equalising its actions and preventing us from seeing it moving something, is not logical. [It can only be useful if something can be moved by it – otherwise it has only potential.]

Saying that gravity does zero work on a ‘closed’ path where a weight returns by any path to its starting point, is meaningless because it does ‘work’ all the time, whether stationary or falling, and you don’t need to measure it to know that.

A change in Potential converted into KE & Momentum - Gravity adds an acceleration force to an object on the way down then applies the exact same acceleration force on the way up – this erodes in equal measures the objects momentum [inertia] gained in the descent [without considering ordinary system losses].

A billiard ball rests on the billiard table. It is not moving. If I lay the back of my hand on the table and put the ball on to it, it is still at rest but I can feel its weight, or the pressure of gravity trying to push it downwards. The definition of force may say that “in order for a force to qualify as having done work on an object, there must be a displacement and the force must cause the displacement�, but I know what I can feel and it is definitely a continuous force pressing down on my hand, despite the fact that, apart from the initial small depression in my hand, no displacement takes place.
Your hands internal structure is pushing back with equal force & that’s why there is no movement – a stalemate has been reached, of opposing forces, but you feel the pressure.

Galileo dropped balls of different masses from the leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass (excluding the limited effect of air resistance) so gravity applies the same pressure to everything regardless of its shape and size, but the amount of the mass effects its inertia or resistance to being accelerated or slowed down.

Not when falling vertically – inertia makes no difference – it is “missing in action� when falling vertically in the y axis – every different mass from the lightest to the heaviest accelerates at the exact same rate [which is very strange & proves that gravity is LOCALLY a field of infinitely compensating potential i.e. rather than a field of energy per se, else like when accelerating an object sideways we need to apply varying magnitudes of force depending on the original mass being accelerated, assuming we want the same rate of acceleration]. From Archimedes time thinkers thought that objects of different masses fell at different rates – they had not thought of gravity as an infinite field of potential able to automatically compensate for differing masses to cause the exact same acceleration in every object. This is what Galileo discovered by finding that time was irrelevant in free fall.

This is like two boats of differing size and displacement. They will float along together despite their differences because like gravity the river on which they are floating is a stream of energy.

The gravity field is also like walking along in a North direction & seeing a stationary West pointing escalator at right angles to your path waiting for you to step on it. Except in this case the instant you step onto the escalator it does not care what your mass is & doesn’t miss a beat or feel your inertia, it instantly starts a uniform acceleration sideways. The guy behind you who weighs twice your weight also gets whisked away at the exact same acceleration, regardless of his inertia. It is an infinitely compensating escalator, an analogy for a gravity field. Boats moved downstream by currents have inertia to be overcome imo.