Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[rmd3]

I think Fletcher's example is right on the money. PE is a relative measurement. It may be suitable for figuring out energy expenditures from point A to point B because this is a difference in energy which would be true no mater where the relative ground is taken. PE (which is F x d) says nothing about sationary objects expending energy (which is F x t). (How could a F x d relationship say anything about a F x t relationship - except when objects are moved a certain distance over a certain period of time?)

-Randall

[Fletcher]

Me thinks you protest to much evg .. ;) Most of the dutchmen I know are pretty canny.

Is gravity and atmospheric pressure related?

Only from the causational point of view. Air molecules have mass - earth's gravity acts on masses pulling them down [or pushing them depending on your point of view] - this causes the air in the atmosphere to form an imaginary column to the reaches of space, which has the highest density at the earth's surface & the least density where it meets space. This forms a gradient of air pressure.

Is gravity related to the density and size of the source?

What is gravity? Moreover, how can it be manipulated within a small space? Or is it impossible?

Is gravity of the source different to gravitational forces?

Gravity is a field - a gradient of potential - Newton discovered that two objects have an impelling force causing them to want to move toward each other - this is called Potential Energy - once objects start moving towards each other they have less PE & the difference in total energy is Kinetic Energy [energy of movement] - that force is proportional to their respective masses & diminishes by the square of the separation distance - this is an inverse square law - it cannot be 'manipulated' - it is all pervasive [in every place], undiminished in potential exerting a constant accelerating force on objects that have any mass - since it is a field the gradient or differential that provides the potential is constant ie. mathematically dictated by the inverse square law.

Einstein thought he had a better way to describe what a gravity field was - he got us to think of space as a flat piece of paper which a ball bearing might roll on after it was given an initial push - the paper must have had a small fall in it so that the frictional losses from the rolling ball did not slow it down [for the purposes of this mind example] & it had constant velocity - when the ball headed towards a massive object such as a planet it would enter a kind of sink well [a funnel] surrounding the planet - the planet would be sitting in the well below the level of the paper & rolling ball - the ball would cross over the lip of the well & accelerate straight towards the planet/mass at the bottom of the well [if it approached it at right angles to the surface] - if it approached it at an angle then the ball would roll over the lip & spiral down to the planets surface - the ball also made its own little indentation in the paper as it rolled along - he called this a warping of space time so that he could give a better explanation of the apparent effects of gravitational forces with a model that could be easily visualized, if not still difficult to understand - interestingly, he [or others] proposed a visual gravity example to explain gravity itself [seems oxymoronic].

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?

Atmospheric pressure can be considered practically constant around an object unless it is very tall [certainly in a wheel anyway] - in reality there is an element of buoyancy for all objects in the atmosphere because there is a small pressure gradient top to bottom providing an up thrust - this is tiny for ordinary sized objects - unless the object has an average density less than that of the density of the air around it it will have a net force downwards due to its weight being greater than its buoyancy force - even if you could practically achieve a pressure difference around two opposed weights in a wheel & create some leverage from it, the weights would have to exchange positions to continue the asymmetric torque, which would mean going thru some sort of physical barrier maintaining a lower air pressure on one side of the wheel, if I am reading you right - additionally, the weight entering the compartment that contained the higher pressure would have to force its way thru the valve & then it would have a pressure force form the higher pressure area driving it backwards & resisting it coming in, due to the pressure differential there also.

As I said before, dumb questions from a simple-minded member

[graham]

Fletcher, thanks for the interesting posts you made where you presented Johns work and inserted your comments within it.

I believe that Bessler almost certainly found a way TO hitch his wheel to gravity. Not overbalanced in the classic and futile way but possibly by somehow by shifting the phase of a pair of opposed weights. Time would be a factor in such a case.

Somewhere , I think it was in Apologia he talks about weights "gravitating" towards the center and then later changing places.

If this is an accurate translation then the word "gravitating" could be an important hint. He doesn't say shifting or move , he says gravitating.

If he found a way to support most of a weights inertia over the axis at some time during the upward cycle of the weight without actually moving it there, then I think this is possibly what he was hinting at.

A spring comes to mind .

Graham

[Fletcher]

No probs Graham .. we must all walk the same road that Bessler apparently did - its just more fun to have company on your part of the road.

[wikiwheel]

No probs Graham .. we must all walk the same road that Bessler apparently did - its just more fun to have company on your part of the road. Fletcher

Like a teenager with no car, he walked, and walked alone.

Mik

[wikiwheel]

No probs Graham .. we must all walk the same road that Bessler apparently did - its just more fun to have company on your part of the road. Fletcher

Like a teenager with no car, he walked, and walked alone.

Mik

[Fletcher]

I believe that Bessler almost certainly found a way TO hitch his wheel to gravity.

Not overbalanced in the classic and futile way but possibly by somehow by shifting the phase of a pair of opposed weights.

Time would be a factor in such a case.

Imo time is a red herring - time allows you to take work done & calculate the power output/rating i.e. the rate that that work was done - if you want something to shift quicker than gravitys acceleration will allow it to move then you are adding an additional force into the system - this can be stored energy via a spring or an extra force that is quite separate, but it has consequences.

Somewhere , I think it was in Apologia he talks about weights "gravitating" towards the center and then later changing places.

If this is an accurate translation then the word "gravitating" could be an important hint. He doesn't say shifting or move , he says gravitating.

From what I've read I think he talks about OOB wheels a lot - & how he used them - they were the gravity part of his 'gravity wheel' imo. When I myself use the term 'gravitating' I usually mean an element of falling or losing PE - perhaps it's as simple an explanation as that ?

If he found a way to support most of a weights inertia over the axis at some time during the upward cycle of the weight without actually moving it there, then I think this is possibly what he was hinting at.

This sounds like an attempt to support part of the weight of the weights on the ascending side ? That might require a physical intervention which imo causes back torque - it appears to lighten the weight on the ascending side but you need to get the weight to roll up hill soon after engaging your intervention, giving back torque - if the weight doesn't change radius then its weight cannot be supported & reduced imo.

A spring comes to mind.

Springs imo require some sort of anchor point, so that they can be tensioned or compressed etc - the process of getting them to store PE in this way causes back torque on the wheel opposing its momentum in the desired direction - therefore springs can take energy out of the system for a period of time & give it back later - no net change in total energy or wheel momentum - JMO's.

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

Your premise:

Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

is confusing. I suspect you mean:

Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Thermodynamics

The gravitational attraction on the mass of the wheel is obviously from the earth and outside the wheel. If the error in physics is how the conservative force of gravity is defined, physicists are still in error. A gravity wheel would violate the definition. I don't know if that's a law.

I think someone already discussed the efficient use of energy over time (power).

[Wheeler]

That is a clear perspective look at the question Bessler007
Mr. Collins seems to of done what I have done many times, and that is post a question in hast.

The simple words Why something doesn't violate physics laws is not really questionable.
There is nothing in the universe that can violate itself.
The word law is man made and is not part of nature.

If my wheel started running and the reason it was running came from Butterfly dust falling at c, and this caused a black hole to eject plasma, which made the butterfly dust turn into magnetic crystals that made one side of the wheel pull more than the other, that would not be a violation of anything.

Anything that ever happens is not a violation, it is just how things are.

Anyway thanks for seeing the error, it is easy to overlook words unless you actually look at them.

Now I hope everyone overlooks any mistakes I made here.

[graham]

Fletcher states:

Springs imo require some sort of anchor point, so that they can be tensioned or compressed etc - the process of getting them to store PE in this way causes back torque on the wheel opposing its momentum in the desired direction - therefore springs can take energy out of the system for a period of time & give it back later - no net change in total energy or wheel momentum - JMO's.

Yes, this is a major problem and one that Bessler might have found a way around.
He writes of his wheel not having a normal rim, he writes of the axle being pierced with holes and having compartments.
An observer hears the sound of a spring expanding upwards. Bessler allows witnesses to hold a cylindrical weight but not to touch the ends (very strange). Karl said it was simple !!!

In my opinion he might have found a way to solve the "back torque" problem and in so doing finally found success.

I'm not ready to give up on springs....................yet.

Graham

[daxwc]

Fletcher wrote '

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.

Yes, but if you drop the helicopter out of the sky in the box does the scale see the impact?

I understand he argument... if it looks like I am trying to find a loop hole it is because I am. Wheeler is right make one wrong word choice and you ears soon become red. 8)))

[Sean]

The helicopter example is flawed because if a helicopter is hovering in the air, then remember that it's also pulling the earth towards it. The earth is pulled by the gravity of the helicopter... albeit, which is infinitesimally small.

Collins' original example with the wind and water streams are flawed for reasons already outlined here. Wind and water don't act in one linear direction, and the forces can be shaped. Gravity can't (as far as I can tell).

While I do love the mystery of Bessler's wheel, my ultimate conclusion is that modern science is correct when it comes to PM. Feel free to prove me otherwise! But I simply can't see a solution in my mind's eye.

As a treat, here is a simple program I wrote a little while ago, using gravity formulas:

http://pbwhere.com/programs/DustGravity.exe

Click on "Add Dust", then click on "Play". Click on "Show Masses" to label the mass of each particle.

~Sean

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
your helicopter example allows us to compare the fuel-energy with the gravity-energy. As long as the helicoper is ihe air, gravity tries to put him down. When fuel is empty the gravity energy is bigger and the helicopter must land.

So we can say : gravity-energy = energy in the tank, this is coverd with the Law of conservation of energy.

Because the helicopter has a specific mass and it is hold in the air for a specific time, the energy which can be extracted from gravity is also time dependant.

Gravity-energy is a function of mass and time.

But how can we turn a wheel with this function ? In your example with the helicopter, how can the helicopter turn the bessler-wheel ?

the future has begun

Georg

[Fletcher]

Graham .. [re: springs, fixed connection points & back torque]

Yes, this is a major problem and one that Bessler might have found a way around.

He writes of his wheel not having a normal rim, he writes of the axle being pierced with holes and having compartments.

An observer hears the sound of a spring expanding upwards. Bessler allows witnesses to hold a cylindrical weight but not to touch the ends (very strange). Karl said it was simple !!!

In my opinion he might have found a way to solve the "back torque" problem and in so doing finally found success.

I'm not ready to give up on springs....................yet.

Quite right not to give up on springs Graham & I don't believe I suggested you do - Bessler used them & even said they were used but not in the way his audience imagined [or some such] - if you want to avoid back torque from springs you have to get rid of the fixed connection point that creates the back torque on the wheel [right ?] - so the only way you can do that is to use them for restorative purposes [rather than drive purposes] & attach them to the lever directly so you can change the CoM of the lever. Now all you have to do is find what the Prime Mover [PM] was so that you can set your weights in the first place !

Daxwc .. yes the scales will register a temporary greater force from the kinetic energy of impact & PE is reduced [same as you jumping onto the bathroom scales] - then the scales will 'bounce back' & read as usual.

Choice of words are important as they convey meaning - consistently poor choices usually means poor understanding imo - especially if someone hasn't written more than 3 sentences, so could hardly have got tired yet ... EDIT : the Edit capability & Spell Check [for the spelling impaired like me] are wonderful things ;)

Sean .. really enjoyed your 'dust' program - ran it thru a couple of times watching to see who would win each time - Keppler would have been proud.

Georg .. Are these rhetorical questions ?

But how can we turn a wheel with this function ? In your example with the helicopter, how can the helicopter turn the bessler-wheel ?

Energy is being used/consumed to allow the helicopter to resist the force of the gravity field - when the fuel runs out - well you get the picture - so we have conservation of energy.

Because the helicopter has a specific mass and it is hold in the air for a specific time, the energy which can be extracted from gravity is also time dependant.

Gravity-energy is a function of mass and time.

Not in the way you have presented it - as Deven said earlier we could attach a rope to the top of the rotor which is suspended from the top of the box - then we could switch of the motor & just let it hang to maintain its PE - this would conserve fuel - the forces opposing the gravity field are the molecular & atomic forces/bonds holding the atoms together in the rope & the acrylic sides of the box - as long as these are not overcome they will hold the helicopter indefinitely - stalemate "action & equal reaction" - therefore time has no bearing in this example of physics.

[ovyyus]

Thanks for your dust program Sean, great fun :D