Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[Wheeler]

beat me too if the force of gravity can cause a wheel to keep turning.

Gravity Wheels? what gravity wheels?

The fact that the topic assumes there is such a thing as gravity wheels sounds like a child asking if eggs prove easter bunny's exist.

Before asking if something proves it, you must show one existing.

How many gravity wheels are out there for you to inspect for the question?

[Wheeler]

Can anyone see what is lifting the weight of this material?
Bill this looks like buoyancy to me You?

The clip from You tube shows it ascending on one side while you can clearly see the weights hanging.

Edit
Wrong link?

[jim_mich]

To me, it seems highly likely that forces could be manipulated in such a way as to keep a wheel rotating on its own.

But if you are manipulating forces to keep the wheel rotating then you are NOT depending on "gravity alone" to power a wheel. This is the crux of the whole Bessler wheel thing, and why everyone fails to find a solution since they look in the wrong place. Gravity alone, by itself, without some extra "force" from somewhere, cannot power a wheel. This is why PMM's are considered impossible. But Bessler said that the weights gain their energy (or force) from motion/swinging. So he is saying that some type of motion of the weight causes the weights to gain energy/force. Once this force is used to move the weights out-of-balance then it is easy for gravity to turn the wheel. It is NOT gravity that provides the power, but rather it is the force from the swinging/moving weights that forces the weights to move out of balance and thus power the wheel.

If 'your' pet theory supplies the force from something other than the swinging/moving weights then it would be 'your' force that powers the wheel.

[rmd3]

Jim_Mich,

Something is not entirely clear to me so please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying that any wheel which has a mechanism for manipulating forces is automatically not depending on gravity alone. Is that what you are saying, or am I missing something? Or are there certain mechanisms which would be considered purely gravity driven? Partially gravity driven? Entirely not gravity driven?

I was just saying that a "gravity wheel" could be any combination of mechanisms for manipulating force but gravity would be required to allow such a wheel to run. I have no idea what a gravity wheel would be without manipulating forces and I would assume such a wheel dead on arrival!!!

-Randall

[Gregory]

rmd3,

The question is what do you mean by 'manipulating forces'?

If you introduce a force from the outside, like electricity, engines, or your muscle power, then it's not a gravity powered wheel any more.

In the other hand if you try to use a bunch of levers, gears, pulleys, ramps, etc. operating on gravity, they won't be able to manipulate forces to power the wheel. They can only change both sides of the equation; action - reaction.

Without introducing a true assisting force form a different source than the above mentioned ones, there will be no chance of a working wheel.

One alternative would be the main property of mass. Whether it is moving or stationary mass has inertia. Nobody knows why but it has. For an example, you can make a mass moving by gravity and you can try to periodically change its inertia / Cf to harness the difference in force to do something with it.

This force is not coming from gravity, and not coming from the outside, but it is coming from the property of mass itself. It may or may not be useful dependent on how we are trying to use. Speaking for myself I couldn't find enough force so far to defeat gravity.

Maybe I shouldn't try to defeat it?

[jim_mich]

Randall, I think Gregory's answer is very good. If the extra energy needed to make a wheel work comes from manipulating forces derived in some unique way from inertial kinetic energy then it does not come from gravity. The extra energy comes from "that force in our universe that is the basis for inertial kinetic energy." We don't have a word for this force that is the cause of inertia. It has never been formally acknowledged to exist. And yet it is ever present and appearent once you start looking for it. It is built into Newtonian physics kinetic energy formulas.

[daxwc]

Science right now is more like religion then science.

Lets see...Gravity expends no energy to keep objects at rest down. Magnets expend no energy to keep stuck to your fridge... why the hell would I have to expend energy to turn a wheel. Which of these are false?

The moon is trying to escape earth's orbit, but the earth expends no energy in trying to keep the moon in orbit. So a force is not always caused by energy transfer. True or false?

I forget to drain my pump before winter. The cold freezes my pump splitting it open... where did it get the energy? The cooling is supposed to be taking away energy from the system not giving it energy.

If I put warm cans of pop outside in -45 deg celsius the cans explode and rupture, but cool cans from the fridge they just bulge... why?

Do I need to go on? Science is not faith... better to keep your eyes open then to listen too hard.

[rmd3]

In the other hand if you try to use a bunch of levers, gears, pulleys, ramps, etc. operating on gravity, they won't be able to manipulate forces to power the wheel. They can only change both sides of the equation; action - reaction.

Gregory and Jim_Mich,

Isn't the point of an overbalanced wheel to have a permanent unbalanced equation? If such a gravity operated mechanism always changes both sides of the equation, that would be an overbalanced wheel. I can't rule out that such a mechanism exists, and in my estimation it would have to be a combination of mechanisms because all such mechanism by themselves will either balance or go to their extreme positions and/or oscillate before either of those two outcomes.

Perhaps there are points and positions of a overbalanced wheel where mechanisms (or combinations of mechanisms) come into play and other times they do nothing. I just don't know how such possibilities could be ruled out given the vast number of combinations possible.

Jim_Mich, can you expand on the idea of a force that is the cause of inertia - or how I might understand what you are referring to. It's not clear to me what you mean - thanks.

-Randall


For myself, I don't put much weight in KE and PE or, for that matter, the Fxd definitions of energy. If I lift a resting pendulum and let it go, it keeps swinging for a long time - it goes up to the point where I lifted it and up on the other side to almost where I lifted it, and it keeps doing this many many times for a long time until drag and gravity have finally overwhelmed it.

You'll have a hard sell to convince me that I didn't get more "energy" out of that than I put in. The pendulum went back to its original position and then climbed back up without me putting in more "energy" and then it did it again, and again.

The PE and KE exchange of "energy" is very conveniently derived from the equations of motion and works for figuring out the velocity of the pendulum at any point, but hardly a description of "energy". Call it force-distance convenience for calculation, but don't call it energy.

Think of all the oscillations and how many times it goes up and down - this is intuitive. Look at it... it goes back up again without an additional lift! There is definitely more movement in the system.

If the pendulum never oscillated and returned to its resting position with the same velocity as I lifted it, I would say I got out what I put in.

So this all begs the question: what was the form of the energy I put in and the excess I got out? - nothing but movement. My movement to initiate the pendulum swing was very little, but the result was much more. This is intuitive - I did get more movement. This can't be denied.

I think the nature of the mechanism (in this case a pendulum) distinctly affects how much more movement I got out than put in. If I just picked up a mass and dropped it, the added movement would be next to nil (barring the force and impact on the ground - which, incidently, would indicate more "movement" than I put in because it did not return to its former position without impact, by the way).

I think the PE/KE thing just sweeps the intuitive observation of gained movement under the rug.

How can this gain in movement be described mathematically? Momentum? I don't know, but the Fxt relationship seems much more intuitive than the Fxd one at this point.

Anyone hold similar views? Or am I out on a limb here all by myself? This is my observation so far anyway... (sorry for the long post)

[evgwheel]

RMD3
I do think it is healthy thinking and keep on doing it.
The point is with all that swinging momentum, is there any possible way that you can lift the same weight to the exact height (from where dropped) or slightly higher, using the energy used by the swinging motion? Without any other input, I do not think so. That is the trouble with over balanced wheel; we come close to over balancing, but in these cases “almost good enough is not good enough� But how good does it make you feel, if you think you found a possible answer. Keep on looking. EVG

[ovyyus]

Lets see...Gravity expends no energy to keep objects at rest down. Magnets expend no energy to keep stuck to your fridge... why the hell would I have to expend energy to turn a wheel. Which of these are false?

Both are true - no work is done by gravity or magnets in your examples. You do have to expend energy to do work though, like turn a loaded wheel.

The moon is trying to escape earth's orbit, but the earth expends no energy in trying to keep the moon in orbit. So a force is not always caused by energy transfer. True or false?

Wierd question - the moon isn't trying to to escape Earth's orbit, it is in a state of equilibrium (almost) between mutual gravitational attraction acting in one direction and CF acting in the other. Is a force always caused by energy transfer?

Science right now is more like religion then science.

Perhaps lack of understanding causes science to seem like religion to you at the moment?

[scott]

Well I'm not taking sides here but Bill you probably knew this would get a rise out of me :-)

Are you saying you understand how gravity works? Or do you just take it on faith that it works somehow and that's all we need to know?

-Scott

[ovyyus]

Good on you Scott :D

In the terms outlined by daxcw, ie; gravity and work - I do think his (I think it's a bloke) understanding of work and gravity is poor and that his lack of, or should I say limited, understanding of the observable relationship between gravity, work and energy has led him to see the scientific interpretation of it as more like a religion. I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all daxcw.

To your real point Scott, I think I have a firm grasp of how gravity acts in terms of observation at the local level. I don't think my observation is based on faith, rather it is based on measurement. IMO, the practice of empirical science is quite opposite to the practice of faith. Do I 'understand' gravity in the sense you mean, at some profoundly deep all-knowing causative level? Well I think you already know the answer to that one :)

Do you think it's necessary to totally understand something at some profoundly deep level in order to arrive at effective working conclusions?

[arthur]

DrWhat

An absolutely MASSIVE body surrounding the entire universe would have gravity drawing all galaxies towards it! Something to think about!

.......YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scott]

Good on you too Bill :-)

Do you think it's necessary to totally understand something at some profoundly deep level in order to arrive at effective working conclusions?

No. But I think it's important to remember that those working conclusions are based on our limited knowledge so far and our ability to measure.

Therefore reliance on the scientific method alone always leaves something out.

In fact, any scientific inquiry automatically assumes a pre-existing unknown as a prerequisite. All scientific progress so far is a testament to the fact. The Buddhists would say that the scientific method and the unknown are mutually arising: can't have one without the other! Problems can happen when we put too much emphasis on one or the other.

So far anyway, what we are leaving out of our current equations is usually something pretty important.

-Scott

[rmd3]

Actually, all knowledge is based on the concept of faith!!! You experience gravity working a certain way and it has never yet worked in a different way for you - so you take it on faith that it will continue to work that way. Think of anything you know. You walk around totally on faith that the next step is going to land a certain way and you will keep your balance. Just look at what happens when you loose your step! The things we know, I think we know because of logical induction - sample a set and make a general conclusion... with faith in the conclusion.

Religion is an understanding people take on faith - not all of which is blind faith (which is what was meant by daxcw when he said science was like religion). I think daxcw could respond by saying that perhaps it is the lack of understanding of some people which causes them to take science on blind faith. That's a perfectly acceptable statement, and it is accurate too. (I hope I'm not putting any words in daxcw's mouth).

Would it be necessary to totally understand something at some profoundly deep level in order to arrive at a practice of religion (i.e. an effective working conclusion)?

The point is this: all knowledge requires faith. Give me a counter example and I will withdraw that conclusion which I have faith is correct.