Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[rmd3]

Fletcher,
If Ralph is right, I apologize.

Ralph,
In order for me to be convinced, I need to know if a DC motor/generator when turned manually (not connected to any load/power source) gives a back emf. If it does, then I am totally wrong on this. I don't know for sure, but I thought Lenz's law required a closed loop. If you stick in a voltmeter, you're closing a loop.

I think my test is valid - just remove the magnets of the motor and compare the manual spinning of that vs. the manual spinning with the magnets - use strong magnets to make sure you can feel it (or not).

Anybody got a big generator (not the Yes album) and give it a whirl?

-Randall

[Michael]

I'm way behind the conversation here but there's quite a bit of contrast difference between science and religion. Please don't mistake dogma headed "believers" of science with real science. Science doesn't give a dam about belief, where as religion makes it one of it's roots. Science has a self correcting mechanism, if something is found to be wrong or incorrect it is noted and the path of correction is sought. Religion holds to its beliefs. Science has never said it knew everything. A good physicist knows there aren't any experts in physics. Religion has always held the opposite view, that it was the authority after its version of god.

Most religions once began as science, then dictatorial politics took over.

There are truths of science that hold no matter what, despite what other questions might arise in the field of explanation. From my perspective this is what Bill was stating.

[rlortie]

In order for me to be convinced, I need to know if a DC motor/generator when turned manually (not connected to any load/power source) gives a back emf. If it does, then I am totally wrong on this. I don't know for sure, but I thought Lenz law required a closed loop. If you stick in a voltmeter, you're closing a loop.

I think my test is valid - just remove the magnets of the motor and compare the manual spinning of that vs. the manual spinning with the magnets - use strong magnets to make sure you can feel it (or not).

-Randall

Randall, my explanation was based on an alternator AKA AC generator. You are comparing it to a DC unit with permanent magnets.

No problem, as Lenz law applies in either and does not require a closed loop. This can be demonstrated by dropping/sliding a magnet down an inclined plane of a conductive metal. Note that I do not say dropping it down a piece of copper pipe. If I do then surely someone will refute by stating that the pipe represents a closed loop which it does not as the polarity created runs opposing the direction of travel.

Yes, manual spinning with the magnets will show drag that the removal of will negate. But if the DC permanent magnet motor/generator is driven with a constant force and rpm it will very soon become saturated, from that point on until a circuit is closed it will spin with no load.

Reverse the situation making the generator react like a motor and you will find that maximum torque is obtained at zero rpm. And the generating source will be working its butt off.

Anyone that has been around a gasoline powered generator or welder will know that once a circuit is closed the engine will be required to work harder by increasing the fuel which is regulated by a governor. Open the circuit, the unit immediately saturates and engine load is relieved.

I understand that we have a number of members here that live in remote places where they produce their own power. I am sure they can verify this.

Run a magnet down an open ended coil and the coil will become energized, but as you state attaching a meter to read it closes the loop and its gone before you can record it. Connect two coils in series but do not close the loop. Lay a compass along side of one and run the magnet across the other briskly, watch the compass needle. Thats how Faraday did it! Do not cheat and get the coils to close together where as the magnet effects the compass.

Ralph

[rmd3]

Ralph,

I'm almost convinced, but I need to iron out some discrepencies. Please bear with me.

Your example of a magnet sliding down an inclined metal plane isn't really appropriate because the magnet induces eddy currents in the form of closed loops.

But come to think of it, we aren't in a vaccum, so there will be some current (however small - hey I stated this already) so there will be a closed loop - hence the weak back emf.... okay I'll agree for the non-vacuum scenario. I'm still not convinced that it happens in the absence of a closed loop though.

hmmm.... I wonder if it's true in a vaccumm?

......

Anyway, did bluesgtr44 ever get an answer to his question?

[Gregory]

Randall,

The link I gave works fine for me. But if not, you can find my topic in the community buzz forum. There is not too much topic I opened, so it's easy to find.

About the generator, I think Ralph is right. Lenz law apply in both cases, and place a drag on the generator trying to slow it down. However if the circuit is closed and a load is connected in, there will be more drag because the load in the circuit consumes some current / magnetic field from the generator windings, which the generator try to keep at its own (constant) level, so it must develop more to do that.

Or I am wrong... as I am no electrician.

[John Collins]

I've read the whole thread with great interest and although I'd like to respond to each posting, that would double (at least) the length of the thread and everyone will fall asleep through boredom, so I'll respond piecemeal over the next couple of days just to those points I want to. I might be responding to comments in other threads for which I apologise, but there is so much to catch up on - and of course I'm very old! ;-)

Someone asked why don't I show my failures and the reason I haven't is partly laziness, as I'm not too good with graphics and the photos might give away stuff I'm working with at the moment. True I could show some of the old stuff, but as I use and re-use the same parts over and over, there isn't anything left of previous models that are complete.

Sorry Jim-Mich, when I declared CF a waste of time I meant that in my opinion it had nothing to do with Bessler's wheel, as a part of the impulse which was necessary for its motion. I agree that it manifests itself but I think of it more as by product of the rotation of the wheel.

Someone took me to task for heading this thread including the words 'violate the laws of Physics' instead of 'laws of thermo-dynamics'. It was suggested that I hadn't thouight about it much. Nothing could be further from the truth. I considered a number of different headings including 'any laws of Physics' rather than 'the laws of physics'. To me the use of the word 'thermo-dynamics' in not all encompassing enough and I didn't want to exclude anything.

More later,

John

John

[rmd3]

Gregory,
I found the variations of a T-pendulum. Interesting...
Thanks!

[John Collins]

Bill, when I say localised effects I mean effects which cause the wind, for instance, to impinge on the sails of a windmill at the wind/windmill interface, but the wind can originate from just outside, a fan for instance, or thousands of miles away. In the same way gravity can manifest locally even if it originates from elsewhere. So even though gravity is accessed externally, it's effect can still be described locally, or within the structure of the wheel.

My use of the word 'localised' seems to be misunderstood. I wanted to avoid using the stereotypical maths and words cut in stone to make my point, hence the use of analogies. Although the wind/water analogies both suffer from the difficult-to-avoid knowledge that they originate from the action of the sun, it is not intended that that part of their process is required to understand my point. The local effect is all I am using. So when I say that wind, for instance acts as a conservative force with a gradient, it does not concern me that it may fluctuate or change direction, all I am interested in is the action it has at the interface between it and the object it is in contact with i.e. the windmill sail. In my analogy the wind is not fluctuating or changing direction, it is just a straight even stream of air. So to say that this is not a fair example seems to me to be wrong. It is quite clear to me that the wind does act as a conservative force at this point and as such it can be equated with the action of gravity and thus despite all the statements to the contrary gravity can also act as the wind does, and drive Bessler's wheel with no other form of energy needed.

Fletch thank you for your in-depth assessment of my presentation. I will respond separately to your words.

John

[Bessler007]

Hello John,

That was me.

Someone took me to task for heading this thread including the words 'violate the laws of Physics' instead of 'laws of thermo-dynamics'.
More later,

John

John

I'm sure you've given the matter quite a bit of thought. I am wondering though if you've considered how well the idea of telling physicists their conclusions about the laws of physics are absolutely correct yet they don't understand the language of physics. They have grievous misunderstandings when it comes to the definitions of such terms as energy, conservative forces, etc.

Do you really think this pig will fly?

[John Collins]

Fletch you wrote,

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 ?]

I say gravity alone drove Bessler's wheel, so when I say gravityless conditions of of outer space I'm thinking of all those videos of astronauts floating about in weightless conditions and I'm sure that Bessler's wheel wouldn't work under those conditions if, as I maintain, it used only gravity as its energy source.

Locally though [the wheel environment] to the appearance of a bystander there would appear to be an addition of energy into the system

.

I agree.

You must provide additional force to move an object sideways/laterally & back again to the same x co-ordinate

Yes and that would happen in a wheel with shifting weights however they were moved.

Gravity is a field – a gradient of potential.]

So is a current of air or water in the circumstances I describe.

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.

I'm pleased that you agree that they (wind and water are conservative forces.

Yes they differ because they are physical mediums which transmit forces that can exert pressure by exploiting a gradient potential and interaction of its mass and inertia with the body needing be moved - so what do you think the weights do? In a gravity wheel, the weights are the physical medium, being pushed by gravity, just as a current of water is, which exert their pressure on the two sides of the centre of rotation, exploiting their own gradient potential and interacting with the body to be moved. i.e. the wheel.

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.

True but not relevant in my opinion Fletch. We only deflect the wind and water after it has impinged on the sail. Up to the point it acts exactly in the same way as gravity. We only look at the 'local' effect, the interface between the two. Gravity does go through an obstruction, but if it isn't fixed to the floor or the wall, then the object flows with it, in just the same way that a boat might flow with the water or remain anchored in a position of gradient potential.

Torque answers much of the rest of this presentation and it is at this point that I have to button my lip. I have said elsewhere that I know the principle through which Bessler's wheel worked and I am trying to finish my prototype (300th probably!) which incorporates this principle and I hope to prove it to all of you first.

All I will say is that the wheel is permanently OOB, before any weights fall, and that each weight is driven by a second, hence the use of the word pair.

The reason why I posted this presentation was because I know that Bessler's wheel only uses gravity as a source of energy so I thought that there must be a way of explaining it within mainstream physics.

Doubtless there will be the usual scoffers and I cannot blame them - I too would probably react in the same way given the circumstances.

I'll write again tomorrow.

John

[rlortie]

I am sure that most active members here are aware of my on-going debate with Jim_Mich. A debate that I consider futile as I do not believe Bessler's machine used any prime force or energy other than gravity.

Although I debate the concept of swinging weights and symmetrical pinned pivots, I only do so as food for thought. I personally do not believe that this approach is the right one.

I agree with John and pick up on his above post where he states "torque answers much of the rest of this presentation. I rely heavily on weights in pairs, or weights working in unison and are in no way attached to a disc, wheel or drum. It is all accomplished with torque applied through leverage
and in anyway you wish to look upon it, gravity is the source.

I have a premonition that I know which path John is taking with his latest design. When he does bring it forth, I do not believe you will find anything related to swinging weights or for that matter any weights on the ascending side of the wheel. My version of applied torque does not have or require them.

With that said I am going to take a break from debating in the general forum and submit an incentive challenge to John as to who will be first.

First in introducing a design based on gravity, leverage and torque that is permanently out of balance. The ascending side is empty as it should be and the greed of wishing for to much weight is recognized. A wheel that will finally fulfill Steve's street of dreams, once unlocked it will gain momentum on its own gravity fed initiative!

Ralph

[daxwc]

There is always the possibilities that when the working wheel is rediscovered that it will violate Newton's Classical Theory, but be validated by Einstien's Theories, Quantum Theory, Strings or some other.

[Fletcher]

Thanks John for your comments & Ralph certainly has laid down the gauntlet to you. Now both of you just have to live up to it ;)

I was well aware that you would likely consider you had an ace up your sleeve to trump the rebuttal I gave [it wouldn't be prudent not to]. Of course, until such time as you present your evidence then it is of academic interest only to continue this discussion as neither you nor Ralph will lay down your cards until you are ready, at which time they can be examined by all.

I would hope that if either of you cannot complete a working wheel, within a reasonable period, that you remember why we are here, swallow the pride & follow up with disclosure for the benefit of all who have loyally followed you both thru these pages & others over the years.

At that time I'm sure I will be ready & willing to take up the challenge again or start polishing my spoon ;)

[Michael]

Up to the point it acts exactly in the same way as gravity.

No John it does not act exactly like gravity. Gravity accelerates mass and continues to accelerate mass until said mass is stopped. The wind only accelerates mass up to a given velocity depending upon it's energetic strength. If a winds energetic strength were increased it would be felt but it would still have a velocity termination point. Gravity acts the same on all masses, not wind...etc.etc.etc...

[evgwheel]

Question for Ralph and John
The two of you are currently working on your new wheel. You both seem to have the same concept of how the wheel should be constructed. Yet there is a challenge. If so, would it not be a good idea for the two of you to talk privately and discuss your idea in detail in the hope for a better outcome, instead of a challenge? (I believe that I know the principal of the concept you are currently working on, but I may be totally of base).
Good luck EVG