Very well stated, but I am a little apprehensive of:
I think the magnet is analogous to the helicopter on the hill.
For years I have been debating magnets, their force and ability to apparently never run out of energy. I have magnets that have been in a repel mode for years with no sign of degradation in their fields.
Th analogous part comes from the "placing a book on a table is no different than a magnet suspended on the side of my refrigerator". I get frustrated and attempt to stick a book on the refrigerator and a magnet to my sheet rock wall!
Daxwc, how much more work would Ralph's helicopter need to do to stay aloft in one place if there was no air for it's blades to continually push against?
Ralph, I would hope that since posting that helicopter analogy you have found a better understanding of the difference between work and potential energy. IMO, it's almost impossible to draw reliable answers from flawed questions.
Ralph wrote:The analogous part comes from the "placing a book on a table is no different than a magnet suspended on the side of my refrigerator". I get frustrated and attempt to stick a book on the refrigerator and a magnet to my sheet rock wall!
The solution to your frustration is to use common double-sided sticky tape. Actually, I invented a special type of sticky tape which has an almost infinite capacity to do work - which of course the experts said couldn't be done. I call it Schtickyfargintape, after a little known Israeli-German free energy pioneer who passed away recently. It sticks like, and I quote the packaging, "Shite to a Fargin Blanket", and I'll even go out on a limb and promise you a 100% guarantee that it'll hold your magnet firmly to your sheet rock wall forever and a day - or your money back :D
Last edited by ovyyus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
well then I would have to go to a rocket there ovyyus... not exactly the point trying to be made. The point was energy transfer and if gravity has to use energy in pulling on objects. Does gravity have an endless supply of energy in trying to attract mass?
Daxcw, in trying to stay aloft, whether the helicopter uses rotating blades pushing against air or rocket thrust, the work being done is in moving mass to create a reaction force on the chopper. Nothing to do with gravity. If a boat was headed due South and we anchored it to a rock, is the boats engine working against the rock or is it working against the water?
Here is a piece of an exam question with the (apparently) correct answer following: - A teacher applies a force to a wall and becomes exhausted, what is the correct explanation?
Answer - This is not an example of work. The wall is not displaced. A force must cause a displacement in order for work to be done.
There was energy expended by the teachers muscles [tension/extension – chemical energy i.e. joules, at the molecular level] – he pushed on the wall & the wall pushed back [resisted] with equal force – both the grounding of his feet, & the walls physical anchoring to the earth, applied equal torques to the Earth’s center of rotation - but the wall did not move, so from a usefulness/work done point of view, it was a stalemate … w = f x d = zero … but make no mistake, energy was expended. The mantra being “if you can’t move it – you can’t use it�.
Mathematically there may not have been any force applied so no work was done but common sense tells me that is wrong. I’m not arguing that the formulae for calculating the work done is incorrect, just that to say no work is done without displacement may be mathematically right but instinctively I know that it is wrong.
You are intuitively correct but mathematically imprecise – the key words in a physics sense is ‘force applied’ - no useful work was done as any force you apply to the wall or torque you apply to the Earth is instantly & exactly equaled by the wall also pushing back against you & creating a counter-torque on the Earth, by the exact same magnitude - “for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction� – the inescapable duality – but energy was expended in the pushing contest.
For another example, remember the ‘strongest man in the world’ competitions? One of the tests involved a competitor holding two heavy weights out at full arms length from the body. The weights had to be held steady for as long as possible. There was, for the duration of the successful part of the test, no displacement downward of the two weights, yet I’m sure that the competitors would say that a force, i.e. gravity, was definitely forcing the weights downwards!
The mans body at a molecular level resisted the force of gravity pushing down on the weights by an equal up force [chemical energy – joules & molecular forces]. The weights didn’t drop in height so their PE remained the same, therefore no work was done by the weights.
This is the same as placing a book on a table top - the table [top & legs] take the strain of the books weight exactly matching the force from the weight of the book – no work was done however as a stalemate was reached with no displacement/movement. If multiple books are stacked one on top of another their combined weight will eventually break the stalemate & overcome the compressive strength of the tables structure & it will collapse – the books will loose their PE as they fall to ground & work will be considered done because a displacement occurred.
Water as a Conservative Force
Flowing water acts like a conservative force. A toy boat floating down-stream can be picked out and carried upstream where it can float down again. This is replacing the kinetic energy used in allowing the current of water to carry the boat downstream and if I hold the boat upstream, or anchor it to the bed of the stream, it has potential energy to be carried downstream again.
The other definition says that a conservative force is defined as one for which the work done in moving between two points A and B is independent of the path taken between the two points. Again it is clear that the distance between where we placed the boat in the water and where we removed it from are the points A and B in the above definition. Only the force of the water was responsible for moving the boat from A to B, but the boat may have been diverted close to the far bank on one trip, by for instance a rock in mid stream and closer to the near bank on a subsequent trip. Here the water alone is responsible for moving the boat from A to B, but the path may vary without any increase in the work done by the stream. This is one of several possible examples that prove that flowing water is a conservative force.
Yes – flowing water is a conservative force. Placing a bollard or rock mid stream causes a physical barrier which results in eddy currents & vortexes as the water flows around them - these change the path of the boat as the stream is diverted around an obstacle, which the boat follows by being pulled with it.
For vessels to actually transverse across the flow of a stream they need keels &/or rudders to provide a Reactive Force to work against the Mass of the stream – additionally, you need an extra source of energy from a steady breeze [relative airflow] to provide the sideways thrust for the keel to get any ‘traction’ against the mass of the water & allow sideways movement, such as sailing slightly upwind - these are force vectors that can be summed together to give a net resultant force vector – this has a lateral & a forward component which allows sailing across & into wind.
Wind as a Conservative Force.
Wind too is a conservative force as can be seen if we apply the definition of a conservative force to it. Can the wind store energy as potential energy? Yes we have seen toy sailboats being driven across a pond by a breeze. When it gets to the other side one can take it out and replace it to the windward side of the ponds and watch it sail across again. This is restoring the lost kinetic energy again. The path can be varied by a cross current of water, and the path from A to B vary, but the wind takes the same amount of energy to get the craft from A to B regardless of how long it took.
Yes – you can use some of the energy from the wind to tack & jibe the boat to cross a body of water & return to your starting position, providing you have a keel to provide a Reactive Force vector against the mass of the water beneath the boat – you can even sail against the current to make some forward progress against it, so in that sense you are able to restore PE.
N.B.1. The vessels hull [water line length], sails, above & below water appendages etc all create drag – this is a combination of form drag [cross sectional or frontal drag which goes up by V^2] & induced drag [vortex drag & laminar flow] - these are a loss to the system – the energy available from the force of the wind is ‘potential’ but the boat is inefficient due losses & only manages to convert a percentage of the available energy from the wind into heading made good & speed [work done] – the heavier the vessel the deeper it rides in the water & the more drag this causes & is why often boat designers try to mitigate tonnage with longer water line length – they also need heavy lead keels, which adds to the tonnage, to keep the wind spilling from the sails - generally sail boats cannot sail across the wind at a speed greater than the wind because of these losses of drag & weight, but wind surfers can – the current wind surfing speed record is about 56 kts in a 30 - 35 kt wind – this is because their setups are lightweight with little form drag coupled with a strong rider able to leverage his weight against the pull of the sail to get optimal efficiency & therefore speed made good.
N.B.2. I’m not a boating person … to me sailing is like driving across a prairie in your SUV at 7 miles per hour, only less interesting … ;)
If physics divides forces into conservative and non-conservative ones, which definition do the words ‘rivers’ and ‘wind’ come under? It is said that non-conservative forces, are of limited duration and without gradient potential. Streams of water and currents of wind must therefore be conservative forces, even though one might describe them as being of limited duration locally, because the limit is not a factor while they are operating. To the object being moved they could be continuous. They have gradient potential; as demonstrated by the analogies above.
Yes – imo they are conservative with gradient potential - the important consideration is that both wind & water currents are physical mediums for the transmission of forces [ultimately caused by solar energy & gravity acting on their constituent parts, having mass & inertia] that can exert pressure [force/thrust] by exploiting a gradient potential & interaction of its mass & inertia with the body needing to be moved.
N.B. Gravity is an all pervasive field of potential, it occupies all space – it cannot be made to go around a physical obstruction, as water or wind can. Water & wind can be physically deflected inducing a lateral component of movement – gravity cannot. Its force is of equal/unchanged magnitude in front of an obstacle as it is behind it, so you cannot create a gravity eddy, shielding or deflecting effect.
Conclusions about Conservative Forces.
This fact about wind and water and their status as conservative forces raises an important point, highly relevant to the argument about gravity wheels. If both of these forces comply with the features of a conservative force, as does gravity, then we have an opening in the seemingly impenetrable wall of scepticism of those who insist that gravity wheels violate the laws of physics. Streams of water drive water wheels and turbines without fracturing the laws of physics. The force of the wind drives wind turbines and windmills of various designs. The conclusion must be that gravity too can be used by itself to drive a weighted gravity wheel – without broaching the laws of conservative forces, nor that of the conservation of energy.
No – gravity has no shearing moment [it applies its force straight down regardless] – water pressure as an example also has no shearing moment - it always applies its pressure at right angles to any surface.
Gravity has no capacity for lateral displacement of an object, regardless of the shape or mass of the object in its field, unlike for water or wind which is a physical medium/conductor for force – it has no mass or inertia of its own & therefore cannot induce asymmetric pressure points on an object to cause lateral movement – it only applies its force in the y co-ordinate so additional supplementary force must be introduced into a system to move an object sideways, relative to the field of gravity.
Does the path of a falling weight rule out gravity wheels?
We have seen how, according to the definition of a conservative force, the path from A to B is irrelevant to the workings of a gravity wheel and therefore no matter how you arrange the weights within, it will not produce a continuous mechanical advantage. The argument that, ‘… a conservative force is a force that does zero net work on a particle that travels along any closed path in an isolated system’ (Wikipedia), is applicable to one weight rotating about an axis, but how many people have designed gravity wheels with only one weight? There have been hundreds of designs over the years and the vast majority have contained anything from two to a hundred weights, but there are few with just one. And of course we are not discussing an isolated system. As soon as you have a design with, say four weights – a common theme – you introduce another factor, that of torque.
Any sideways displacement of a weight in a wheel requires the input of a force – if that force is from physical interaction with a ramp or guide then it will cause the weight to loose KE & momentum in compensatory amounts, the losses of energy in the form of heat, sound etc, although the acceleration due gravity is always the same that acts on the weight. The ramp or guide then produces a measure of back torque in the system whether it is part of or independent of the wheel structure – Action & Equal Reaction.
As an example, if you have two opposed weights at the same radius & you move one weight horizontally CW from 12 o’cl to a greater radius at about 1 o’cl, you get an initial increase in torque due to the extra leverage, which will cause the wheel to rotate. There will be a temporary loss of some angular velocity to the wheel. At some point the weight must be brought in to the same closer in radius it started from, to reduce the negative torque that would be experienced on the ascending side, so that it might hopefully continue to rotate due to the asymmetric leverage about the center of rotation. The physical fact of shifting that weight closer to the axle on the ascending side, anytime after 6 o’cl, so that it can start the cycle again at the same PE height, requires that the weight be lifted [a restorative force applied] to regain the PE it started with. Adding multiple weight sets just multiplies the problem & doesn’t address the PE shortfall that must be accounted for to make the system self sustaining and/or do useful external work, after ordinary losses are accounted for.
Torque
Torque is a twisting action and is applied to an object to make it turn about its axis of rotation. It describes rotational motion. When we tighten a nut with a spanner we apply torque to the nut. The longer the spanner the more torque we apply. Torque is a measure of how much a force acting on an object causes that object to rotate. The object rotates about an axis, or pivot point.
Torque = Force x Distance, so more force or more distance, both achieve more torque.
When a weight acts on the circumference of a wheel, it acts like a lever, and if you have two opposing weighted levers, then the one that has more leverage will overpower the other. Or to put it another way, the weight that is further from the centre of rotation will fall, causing the other one to rise. This fact is well known and lies at the heart of most gravity wheel designs. Thus we see that although the definition for a conservative force is correct when applied to a single weight rotating about a point (and in an isolated system), it does not take into account the possibility of having more than one weight at a time, rotating about that point. ... [See the above explanation.]
Conclusions
1) Gravity wheels are not the same as perpetual motion machines because they are not isolated systems. Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not breached because they use gravity as an external source of energy.
Yes, they cannot be isolated systems, they need a supply of Restorative Energy scavenged/burgled from the immediate environment – i.e. they need an external energy top up ! They therefore would not breach the conservation of energy law ! Where that energy source/force comes from is the big question ? Gravity will be part of the solution [because Bessler says so by calling it/deferring to it, as a gravity wheel] but imo it is not the source of Restorative Potential Energy to the system. Bessler says in MT15 that “from this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover’s [noun/adjective] source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance� – clearly there is a “Prime Mover� apparatus or effect to lift weights at the appointed time - this may be part of the one OOB system or additional/supplementary to it ?
N.B. imo Bessler’s wheels weren’t the energy isolated wheels solely dependent on gravity he would have us believe. He doesn’t accurately define his interpretation of what constitutes a PMM so leaving the door firmly ajar for the introduction of “other’ extraneous forces as candidates for the “Prime Mover� or prime moving effect/capability.
3) Gravity is a conservative force but so is flowing water and the wind and if they can be used to drive machinery then so can gravity.
No, not by itself – gravity cannot be depleted, shielded, deflected or caused to flow around objects so creating eddy’s of directional change - its force is the same magnitude & direction at/in all points in space [locally] - unlike water or air which has a physicality of presence, of density & mass, & therefore inertia itself [density caused by gravity - gradient potential caused by solar for moving currents], which manifests as the pressure differentials & inertial impact thrust that we are familiar with.
4) As a conservative force, the path of falling weights is said to be irrelevant however this does not take into account the situation where more than one weight is present, resulting in the potential to create torque. In this circumstance the paths of the weights are critical.
Any OOB wheel with opposing weight sets that move in & out is equivalent to a simple single pendulum i.e. it starts in balance – must be placed out of balance – let rotate – then its momentum must be sufficient to restore its original potential energy [Center of Mass] to at least the original starting height, and do work etc. If its momentum is insufficient [due losses] or hasn’t been added too internally within the wheel, to restore PE after normal system losses [plus do external work], then adding multiple weight sets only multiplies up the problem & increases point loading on bearings, creating additional frictional losses & providing multiple keeling positions.
I am satisfied that Johann Bessler had the genuine article, and I hope to prove it to everyone else too, and if I’m right then that means that we could have it too. I also believe that such a machine does not require any fundamental change to our understanding of the laws of physics and therefore there is nothing preventing us from designing and building such a device.
The fact that for the last 300 years no one has succeeded in building one should not dismay us. I think the chief reason for this is due to inventors constantly rediscovering the same designs. From what I know of Johann Bessler’s work I believe he discovered a different concept, a different application of the force of gravity and I think I know what it was.
kind regards -fletcher
Last edited by Fletcher on Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
really...So helicopter hovering at 1m would burn the same amount of fuel as one hovering 1000m in a hour span? Hmm...bs
Also no work is being done unless the helicopter moves.
Once you admit that gravity has to use energy to attract mass and that the energy is unlimited, then you are one step from having to look at that maybe gravity is energy.
Is gravity related to the density and size of the source?
Is gravity of the source different to gravitational forces?
Would the balance of two equal weights be different if one weight has less atmospheric pressure? In addition, can this be done without a lot of energy input from another source?
What is gravity?
Moreover, how can it be manipulated within a small space? Or is it impossible?
As I said before, Dumb questions from a simple-minded member
daxcw wrote:really...So helicopter hovering at 1m would burn the same amount of fuel as one hovering 1000m in a hour span? Hmm...bs
Yes, assuming no change in its capacity to move air due to proximity to the ground or from a rarified altitude, then the same relative amount of fuel would be used by the helicopter hovering for one hour at 1M or at 1000M.
daxcw wrote:Also no work is being done unless the helicopter moves.
Work is being done to move air. A helicopter hovers, or moves, by reaction. Think about it.
daxcw wrote:Once you admit that gravity has to use energy to attract mass and that the energy is unlimited, then you are one step from having to look at that maybe gravity is energy.
I predict that one day, hopefully in the not too distant future, the penny will drop :)
daxcw wrote:
really...So helicopter hovering at 1m would burn the same amount of fuel as one hovering 1000m in a hour span? Hmm...bs
Yes, assuming no change in its capacity to move air due to proximity to the ground or from a rarified altitude, then the same relative amount of fuel would be used by the helicopter hovering for one hour at 1M or at 1000M.
Wrong, gravity works at a differential of .981 so a 5000kg helicopter at ground level would be 95 kg lighter at 1000m.
daxcw wrote:
Also no work is being done unless the helicopter moves.
Work is being done to move air. A helicopter hovers, or moves, by reaction. Think about it.
I agree and that is exactly my point, of course work is being done, but not if I use my physics book . The only thing that did any work was air.
I haven't time to read over Fletch's summary and commentary, but I will get back to that later. I kind of want to clear up the helicopter argument, first.
Its quite easy to explain. There are alot of losses in order to lift a helicopter up into the air. Losses to friction, heat loss, sound, etc.
The helicopter takes x amount of energy to cause itself to be weightless. At this point it hovers, like in Ralph's analogy. It takes x more energy to lift it further into the sky.
When the helicopter is hovering, it is doing work, by pushing air around it downwards to keep it from falling to the ground. I think we are well aware of this.
In Ralph's explanation, while the copter is hovering it has the same potential energy, but it is consuming energy to stay there. This surely means that gravity is "destroying" energy?
In actuality, the helicopter does not truly "hover". It rises and falls constantly. We might barely notice it, but this is what it is doing. I think this is the point that most people are missing.
When it falls, it loses some potential energy. When it rises, it does the work needed to get it back to where it was. Gravity does not destroy energy anywhere along the lines. If it were truly hovering at a fixed point, it would need a rope tied to the top of it, and then, you could simply turn the engine off! You'd still have the same PE, and you wouldn't be doing any work.
Last edited by Deven on Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
daxcw wrote:Wrong, gravity works at a differential of .981 so a 5000kg helicopter at ground level would be 95 kg lighter at 1000m.
ovyyus wrote:Yes, assuming no change in its capacity to move air due to proximity to the ground or from a rarified altitude, then the same relative amount of fuel would be used by the helicopter hovering for one hour at 1M or at 1000M
I used the word relative in order to cover your point about gravity deminishing with height, perhaps I should have been more explicite. I don't see how that point can help the discussion though.
daxcw wrote:I agree and that is exactly my point, of course work is being done, but not if I use my physics book . The only thing that did any work was air.
I think your physics books would agree that work is being done by a hovering helicopter as it works to accelerate air downward in order to create an upward reaction thrust. Air isn't doing any work, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Hi Deven
I hope you are ok with this simple correction.
You may of just overlooked this, but I thought I would bring it up so you can correct it if you wish.
YOU wrote: (The helicopter takes x amount of energy to cause itself to be weightless)
This is incorrect.
If the helicopter could become weightless we would be out of a job trying to find the answer to how Bessler made his wheels.
If the helicopter became weightless at any point, there would be no need to have the rotors.
Objects do no become weightless just because they are above the ground.
Wheeler, I know, of course that it isn't truly "weightless". It takes a constant x amount of energy to negate gravity's effect (because it is constantly rising and falling). A little bit more energy gives it lift. Thats all I was saying.
The real answer, daxwc, is that, yes, the energy transfer goes to wind, sound, friction and heat. All the energy can be accounted for. Gravity does not destroy energy. It especially doesn't destroy it in the helicopter case. I hoped my previous explanation was good enough, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough.
I mean, I can understand the confusion, but you're looking at a single piece of the puzzle and saying that because this = this this happens. In reality there are alot more pieces to the puzzle, and the PE of the helicopter is just a small part.
Example : Place a sealed & air tight transparent acrylic box [say 2 meters square i.e. 8 cubic meters] on top of a set of accurate scales, which is sitting on a concrete floor. The air inside the box is at atmospheric pressure, the same as the local air density. Inside the box is a radio controlled helicopter sitting on the floor of the box. Take a reading of the entire setup on the scales & continue to do so.
Now, using your transmitter fire up the helicopter & raise it up until it is hovering inside the air tight box. Take another reading of the scales then set the helicopter down again.
There will be no change at any time in the weight registered on the scales [other than minute fluctuations due to accuracy settings]. So the scales will read the same amount before lift off - during ascent - at hover altitude - during descent - after landing again.
The reason is that in order for a helicopter to hover it must burn fuel [consume energy] to turn the rotors against the drag of the atmosphere. The rotors job is to move a mass of air downwards beneath the helicopter thus giving the air kinetic energy. The rotors create a column of accelerated air. Each molecule has inertia & after being physically accelerated they have momentum. The individual air molecules are compressed beneath the helicopter transferring their momentum to the next air molecule in contact with it & so on. The air molecules at the bottom of the box by impact create an additional pressure force against the floor, then move out sideways & back to the top of the box, forming a closed system circulation pattern.
The conclusion is that even in ascent when more power is required to lift the helicopter against the gravity field the engine & rotors must accelerate a greater mass of air & therefore expend more energy getting to altitude. Once in the hover an equilibrium of forces has occurred where the accelerated air has momentum & it creates a force of the floor of the box which is exactly equal to the weight of the hovering helicopter. The scales register the sum of the forces i.e. Action & Equal Reaction & always read the same amount of force.
But the helicopter does work to keep accelerating the air & giving it KE - the PE of the helicopter in hover is technically reducing over time - its PE from maintaining height remains unchanged. But if we consider the fuel burn there is a reducing of its overall potential [this is irrelevant for this physics example].
