Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[rlortie]

evgwheel,

I already have a partner that shares the concept I now build. It is derived from his original idea. We have our own incentive plan that was agreed to upon the conclusion that his model would not work, but looks more viable with changes by both of us.

If Johns version has any correlation to the one I am building it would be a conflict of interest for me to involve myself.

I do not think I have to worry about making a decision as John is capable of finding the resources to make it on his own.

The challenge is meant as a friendly gesture to give incentive for a quick proof of concept. If if does not work then it will be at the inventors discretion to reveal it to the forum.

Ralph

[John Collins]

Yes Bessler007, I think this pig will fly - if I understand your question right?

Glad you're with me on this Ralph and of course I accept the challenge.

Michael wrote

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...

Are you sure about that Michael? I thought that gravity accelerated mass up to a certain point, otherwise we would have things flying about above the speed of light!

We have talked of this idea before evgwheel (working with Ralph) and it's a good idea in principle but hard to accomplish when we are so far apart and there seems little point when we are both able to put our ideas into practice with prototypes, without seeking aid from each other. I think Ralph has enough to do as it is and I have limited time to devote to my own efforts and would probably slow him down.

Both you and Ralph may be thinking along the same lines as I in which case - good luck to us.

John

[John Collins]

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.

Yes of course Fletch. I have half written a full description with graphics of what I'm working on and will post it as soon as I know my book is being published. If it does work of course, you will know anyway.

John

[ovyyus]

Are you sure about that Michael? I thought that gravity accelerated mass up to a certain point, otherwise we would have things flying about above the speed of light!

Michael is correct - a weight accelerates in a gravitational field at a continuous rate regardless of its speed, in our case about 9.8M/sec/sec. Whereas a weight being pushed by wind experiences a force which deminishes as the weights speed approaches the speed of the wind (with a few limited aerodynamic exceptions which, IMO, don't have bearing on the matter).

[Bessler007]

Let there be light and let it have no invariant mass but allow it to have a relativistic mass for as long as the universe accelerates in its expansion. Let them figure that one one, Gabriel. That should keep them busy for a few thousand years.

Once they figure it out we'll put them in a round room and tell them to stand in the corner.

...
Are you sure about that Michael? I thought that gravity accelerated mass up to a certain point, otherwise we would have things flying about above the speed of light!...

If something is floating in a stream it will stop accelerating once it is moving at the same rate as the stream (less the drag of frictions). If gravity is a stream where all mass in the universe is inter-connected by the electro-magnetic spectrum everything might began to move at a uniform velocity once it reaches the speed of light. What a sight that would be.

It is too easy to get dragged into the stream of this discussion. Must resist. Have to build. Need real, honest answers.

[John Collins]

Yes of course Bill! Temporary abberation - hopefully.

Even so, as all objects fall at the same speed (or accelerate at the same speed) it does not effect my argument and the local effect is the same (IMO). The reason for this is that gravity may be accelerating the weights but they are fighting the resistance of friction and doing work. So even though gravity is trying to accelerate the weights they are being restrained in the same way as the wind which is only able to blow at a certain speed and, as you say, wind experiences a force which diminishes as the weight's speed approaches the speed of the wind.

In effect gravity is trying to accelerate the weights but friction and work are making the weights appear to slow down.

Gravity is causing the weights to fall at precisely the right speed to deal with the friction and the work being done.

This is really hard to explain!

John

[rlortie]

John,

Yes! hard to explain.

If something is floating in a stream it will stop accelerating once it is moving at the same rate as the stream

A mass with a density or displacement capable of floating down a stream never reaches the same speed as the current flow. Close but not quite, reason is that the water behind the mass is always replacing that which the object displaced (cavitation), not unlike the drag on an airplane.


Now the stupid question, or is it so stupid?

The stream is flowing due to gravity. if the stream containment has low friction or very little impedance to the total opposition to current flow, why does a stream not keep accelerating?

I am educated in hydraulics, so please simply consider this question as something to ponder.

Ralph

[graham]

why does a stream not keep accelerating?

Thats a good question Ralph.
If you consider a ball rolling down a slope it will continue to accelerate.

Maybe it's the friction of the banks and river bed that hold it in check.

Then again it could be that the slope is quite gentle , that combined with the above friction, a balance is achieved.

Am I right?

Graham

[Michael]

Are you sure about that Michael? I thought that gravity accelerated mass up to a certain point, otherwise we would have things flying about above the speed of light!

That is exactly correct John. Do a search. It's been believed since the time of Einstein that the speed limit to gravity is paired, or is on par with the speed of light limit. I remember hearing a few years ago it was proved.

John even in vacuum where there is no friction objects all accelerate at the same rate. There are obvious differences and so the root to each effect is different.

Ralph I would have to say part of the answer is do to molecular and atomic friction or in otherwords viscosity. There is another word but it escapes me at the moment.

[turulato]

Hi guys;

Just a quick note while we are on this subject.
One of my first experiments was to built a wheel with pendulum type weights an a 12" dia. wheel.

This were my observations:

1-At about 30 or 31 RPM the weights were thrown to the rim and remained there.
2-At about 26 or 27 RPM the weights remained in place not being much affected by the CF.

Because of this my conclusion was that Bessler's wheel was of the OOB type as per my observations it made sence that a wheel of that type would find a point of balance where it would not go so fast that it would neutralize the OOB. How can I explain it? It is as if it would go fast following the force of gravity as it is explained by others but at the same time it would brake itself because it can not sustain itself perpetually to maintaining the CF. Boy, it's hard to explain but I hope my point comes across.
The killer is the wheel that turned at 50 RPM, Bessler must have used a totally different principle, most likely a pendulum.
Got to run and go back to work.

Turulato

[rlortie]

Hello Vic,

Nice of you to drop in, I have been thinking of you lately and was wondering if you had been trapped across the border!

Michael & Graham

Ralph I would have to say part of the answer is do to molecular and atomic friction or in other words viscosity. There is another word but it escapes me at the moment.

Basically you got it! The word you are missing is"cohesion". You see the funny part that most do not consider is that the molecular structure of water once together wishes to stay together. Now if the flow of water were to keep accelerating, the point of beginning also has to accelerate or the water has to pull itself apart. Velocity cannot exceed the volume of source.

Think about this in terms of a wheel
Ralph

[daxwc]

The stream is also going sideways more like an incline plane. If you drop water over falls it picks up speed during fall then loses the energy in the pool.

[Bessler007]

...

If something is floating in a stream it will stop accelerating once it is moving at the same rate as the stream (less the drag of frictions).

yes, that drag will impede the velocity of the floating object. Similar to an airplane.

This is the case for a creek or lich (etc.) but the jet stream has kinetic energy imparted to it from thermals.

The stream is flowing due to gravity.

A river has kinetic energy imparted to it by gravity as it seeks a lower level. If gravity isn’t creating the energy, the question is where is the kinetic energy that gravity imparts to the stream coming from?

They are spending big bucks trying to understand what gravity is but so far they don’t have an answer.

Mr. Collins, I don't think this is an original idea on your part. Is that correct?

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

That might not have been a clear question. This quote is from the link on page one (from your site):

and yet still be able to draw on an inexaustable supply of energy - gravity.
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 do agree gravity is a source of energy. In the stream example the kinetic energy of the stream is transfered to the object floating down stream. The mass of the stream in motion is the definition of kinetic energy. That energy comes from the stream seeking a lower level. Gravity is adding that energy to the stream by pulling it to a lower level.

The question I have is where does this conservative force called gravity get the energy to transfer to the stream? I don't think physicists consider gravity to be a source of energy. They think of it as a conservative force.

My question is:

Is the idea that gravity is an energy source (as per the quote from your site) an original one? I think I've heard it before.

[rlortie]

Victor,

1-At about 30 or 31 RPM the weights were thrown to the rim and remained there.
2-At about 26 or 27 RPM the weights remained in place not being much effected by the CF.

Reminds me of a "Fly-ball" governor, one of the few things CF is good for and that is regulating speed.

After it speeds up to the point that CF is balancing it, it then slows down
How can I explain it? It is as if it would go fast following the force of gravity as it is explained by others but at the same time it would brake itself because it can not sustain itself perpetually to maintaining the CF. Boy, it's hard to explain but I hope my point comes across.
The killer is the wheel that turned at 50 RPM, Bessler must have used a totally different principle, most likely a pendulum.
Got to run and go back to work.

I think you do a very good job of explaining it. As for the 50 rpm, consider different weights to ratio and rim velocity. If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance.

I will go with the flow here as to not mess up this thread. But in reality what I write is not my opinionated thinking in how to build a gravity powered machine.

Ralph