Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[daxwc]

I have been interested in the buoyancy properties of mercury. It is not often you can float lead. But I wonder if Bessler could have had access to large volumes or be able to afford it early in his career.

[winkle]

jim_mich wrote

If water and air pressure is ruled out, which I agree with, and gravity is conservative, which I also agree with, then I choose to look at inertia. Inertia has some unique characteristics. Those being that as the speed changes then the force that can be developed changes by the square of the speed. Now men of science say conservation of energy is maintained. I feel that this remains to be seen.

is this the concept you are attempting to utilize

More significantly, it becomes ever more clear that one can initiate an action upon a body, and then detach before the equal and opposite reaction can fully manifest itself.

If a force is applied to an object and there is a time delay (the “Critical Action Time�) before the object can fully resist the application of the force, then the force (which has already initiated the action upon the object) can retract and avoid the object’s reaction. This is similar to what we do when we hammer a nail. Just as the hammer is about to make impact, we loosen our grip on the hammer such that the shock the nail and the hammer receive at impact is not transmitted into our hand. This is particularly true when we’re dealing with a sledge hammer. (Or at least after the first, body-shattering blow.)

This also relates to the popular notion in the movies that someone can hit someone else’s head with their head, and while the recipient falls over unconscious, the initiator of the action escapes Scot free. How can that be? Because the initiator also retracts his head quite quickly, and therefore avoids the results of the impact -- what in physics would be called the impulse. The recipient has been sent reeling back, his head well hit, while the initiator is walking away as if nothing happened.


http://www.halexandria.org/dward133.htm

[AldenPark]

Sketch Proof that Conservative Part of Gravity Does Not Provide Sustained Wheel Power. On Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:29 pm, Post subject: re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics, p 19, Fletcher asked "Why does Potential Energy = mgh & not the horizontal path the weight takes during its decent ?" The usually considered conservative part of gravity (not providing sustained power for a gravity wheel) is locally, typically modeled as F= -mg (assuming up is the positive direction). In moving a particle of mass, m, of "negligible" size from point A to say a higher location B, the work done by that conservative part of gravitational force is -mgh or the line integral used as we move the mass along any particular path as we integrate (F) dot (dr) = line integral (-m)(g)(dr) cos(theta) = integral (-m)(g)(dz) = -mgh = - (PE at B - PE at A). The change in potential energy is mgh which only depends on h = height of B above A, since theta represents the angles between the force (F) and the differential displacement vectors (dr). Also magnitude-wise, |dr| |cos(theta)| = |dz|. Any horizontal pathway portion is zeroed out by the cosine of the angle between the vertical force of gravity and the differential horizontal displacement, corresponding to the dot product of the two perpendicular vectors. The cosine of 90 degrees is zero. No work is done by gravity during horizontal displacements. We could have gone by any path from A to B and it would still have that same potential energy difference. The time average power obtained from the conservative portion of gravity (for this mass, m) would therefore go to zero, with time increasing to infinity (for the mass confined within a wheel, even if the mass doesn't come back to its starting point). The proof comes from bounding the change in potential energy for each mass and noticing that the time average for each bound goes to zero, as time goes to infinity. The actual case is in between the two bounds whose time averages both go to zero, so this proves that for the actual case the time average power produced goes to zero as one averages over long enough time. Specifically with wheel diameter of D, 0 <or= average power produced by mass m <or= mgD/T which goes to 0 as time T goes to infinity thus proves that the average power produced by mass m from its conservative portion of gravity goes to zero. The proof carries through whatever the path of the mass is within the wheel. The proof is then applied to every mass m within the wheel without regard to the particular paths that the individual masses take. We could also notice that 0 <or= average sustained power produced <or= MgD/T goes to 0 as time T goes to infinity (where M is the sum of the masses m within the wheel). QED

That is a quick proof sketch that the power from Bessler's wheel did not come from the conservative portion of gravity. Nonetheless, I am convinced that the power actually came from gravity. There is a way to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions. Often we think of non-conservative forces like friction causing power to be lost. The work (line integral of Force dot dr) done by the non-conservative force is path dependent. Non-conservative forces can also cause power to be produced. Conservative forces mean that the work done by the conservative forces in moving the test particle is path independent. There is no power source nor sink associated with a conservative force. I am convinced that there is a portion of the gravitation forces that is non-conservative and it is this ignored (typically unmodeled portion of the gravitational forces that produces large amounts of power, and especially so, as the angular speed about horizontal axes increases). The power came from the non-conservative (time and space dependent) portions of gravity not generally mentioned associated with gravitons. It is not the time and space dependencies between gravitons that we can use in modern day Bessler wheels (in my opinion) but rather the time and space dependencies between the applications of the two parts of each graviton. See one of the following references of mine for more details. AEP - 8 Sep 2007

17 Feb 2007 email to Infinite Energy posted on my Internet site (http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/) with a subject of "Repeat McKinley Low Friction Demonstration"
Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:58 am, Post subject: re: two part "electrostatic" graviton, p 1.

[jim_mich]

The power came from the non-conservative (time and space dependent) portions of gravity not generally mentioned associated with gravitons. It is not the time and space dependencies between gravitons that we can use in modern day Bessler wheels (in my opinion) but rather the time and space dependencies between the applications of the two parts of each graviton.

Conservative gravity is time and space dependent. An object takes time to fall and a space distance to fall through. If you talk about a non-conservative portion of gravity then what you talk about is no longer gravity. It is most likey inertia, which is a cousin to gravity.

If gravity and inertia are a result of a same graviton [particle, force, Ether Energy or whatever] then gravity might be the unbalanced shielding of the flow of moving gravitons and inertia would be when objects bump and push into and through these gravitons [particles, force, Ether Energy or whatever term one wants to use]. If gravity is a shielding affect by the Earth then it means that the gravitons are flying about in all direction and when they get blocked by the Earth then we get more gravitons from above that push downward on objects. We call the affect "gravity." Now if the gravitons cause gravity then when an object tries to move through the sea of gravitons it must also bump into them and be affected my them. We see this as inertia.

So your hypothysis that there is a non-conservative portion of gravity might be partly true because both gravity and inertia are the result of gravitons [or whatever noun one wants to use to describe the universal cause of inertia and gravity].

[Michael]

Bill have you given a fair thought to the idea that water and other liquids boil at a lower temperature in a vacuum or partial vacuum ( I know you had the birds - I don't mean that )?

Some ideas that come to mind;

A fallin or dropped weight causing vacuum pressure to a container. Using the boiling water as pressure.

Friction to heat a vacuum container to increase the liquids boil-pressure. Dipping the containers in water to cool them to decrease the boil pressure.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for attempting that explanation Alden .. I would hazard a guess that only a few here are that skilled in math & could have easily followed your math proof that horizontal displacement [or path] is irrelevant when a weight falls, thus proving why PE = mgh. Most of us are 'hands on' & visually perceptive & probably relate better to more tangible, mechanical descriptions of what the changing of angles & the time function actually means in a practical sense.

If you'd be willing, I'd appreciate you trying again but with a more practical bent ? I am labouring the point because it is fundamental to understand why "trading height for width" is zero sum. So many of us accept the scientific explanation yet spend hours & hours trying to circumvent the truth we are told, but don't fully believe, it seems.

This goes to John's argument about using multiple weight sets to create asymmetric torque form the conservative force of gravity, or in other words, somehow manipulating the path the weights follow to your advantage & thereby breaking the laws of leverage.

Anybody else who can visually describe what this means is welcome to try - I warn you it is not easy to do in a clear & concise way that doesn't resort to inserting math formula's :)

[10x]

Interesting reading.

As for trying to explain without math, Good luck. The math come from the aspect of measurement of what is going on.

[Fletcher]

That we know 10x - the trick is to change the way it is presented to make it understandable & palatable - to find the common denominator that still makes sense to the largest group.

[10x]

Well I am new to the ideas of such. Followed the links of some one who was labeled a fraud to here.

Weird enough they got me to thinking of how such could work.

The problem to me is that the only true usable area in a wheel to drive by gravity is from just past top dead center to the right angle of that. 90 degrees. The balance must be reset on the arm prior to this point of you have that nasty gravity going against you again.

Such would have to be an offset of the balance of weight as has been shown all over this board. LOL

If I followed the normal idea of physics, this 90 degree area can be used.

Strangely enough I can even see the 60 degree idea of the guy labeled as a fraud, ROTFLOL. A simple six arm wheel. Keeps a off balance at all times in the system.

Were as the inertia is the only thing I can see to cause the offset of balance, more of that evil friction, I can still visualize that such may be achievable.

I do no see most of the ideas shown on this board being achieved simply due to they try to go past the centerline of the wheel to the bottom side.

This simply creates overcoming more gravitational force to regain balance. The incline plane problem again.

Will amuse me for awhile I believe. For the first time I can see a bit of potential.

I am sure all my present ideas have already been tried, but who knows, might even be able to get out an idea that will help some one get er done.

[ovyyus]

Bill have you given a fair thought to the idea that water and other liquids boil at a lower temperature in a vacuum or partial vacuum ( I know you had the birds - I don't mean that )?

Yes, I've given it some thought Michael. I think one of the problems with any kind of thermal-mass transfer is slow process speed. It takes time to heat a volume of given mass whether it be gas, liquid or solid and in a fairly fast rotating wheel there isn't much time.

Some of the methods I've examined are: a very long and thin length of metal wire laced through many small pulleys (like a spider web) - when exposed to a change in air temperature the wire will rapidly increase or decrease it's length with considerable force; another idea involves two thin copper plates that are sealed (soldered) at the rim and contain a small amount of volatile low boiling point liquid. When the plates are pulled apart (by spring tension) a vapor lock is formed in the liquid which counterbalances the set spring tension. Any change in ambient temperature is rapidly translated through the copper plates resulting in an increase or decrease in tension between the vapor lock and the spring and, because of the large surface area of the plates, a considerable force can be developed.

Of course, these 'prime movers' are employed to do work lifting overbalancing weights in order to create a Bessler wheel, but that would be the fun part after the heart of the system can be made to beat.

[10x]

Look at a Atmos perpetual clock.

The item uses barometric changes to wind the spring.

[ovyyus]

The Atmos perpetual clock is a great example - although the principle can't be made to do practical work. James Cox made such a clock in the 1760's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox's_timepiece

The clock is similar to other mechanical clocks, except it does not need winding. The change of pressure in the Earth's atmosphere acts as an external energy source and causes sufficient movement of the winding mechanism. This keeps the mainspring coiled inside the barrel. The clock is designed to enable the timepiece to run indefinitely and overwinding is prevented by a safety mechanism. The prime mover, encased in a finely detailed clock body, is a Fortin mercury barometer. The barometer contains 68 kilograms (150 pounds) of mercury. The Cox timepiece resides in the Victoria and Albert Museum of Great Britain.

I don't think Bessler's wheel could in any way operate on barometric pressure change. However, I find it interesting that James Cox claimed his clock as a "true perpetual motion" in the 1760's. If Bessler found and harnessed a free environmental energy source (my bet is thermal) in 1712 - 50 years prior to Cox - might he also genuinely claim his machine as "true perpetual motion"?

[bluesgtr44]

I am so behind on this thread....I have been trying to catch up on it for a week now. This is one of the better threads I have seen in a long time as far as really throwing some approaches and theories out there for many to discuss and digest. The feedback has been some of the best I have seen in a couple of years!

So, let me throw myself in the mix....I think Jim has presented a rational argument for his theory...theory...there is a difference in potential that is evident from swinging/moving weights. He also draws from the scenario at Kassel where 'sGravesand and Bessler evidentally had a bit of a falling out over this difference of potential. Again, a very good presentation of a theory....

Bill has his feet planted firmly on the ground...his case is based on proven science that nothing from nothing leaves nothing....there was an outside force at work and he believes that a thermal approach is the best suspect for a working wheel. A sound theory for a working wheel.

Now, I am of the thinking that the wheel was loaded....from the word ...go. Basically...find the keel point of a particualr design. It is sitting perfectly still (crickets chirping)...this is "zero" potential. Ok, now you add the mechanism....this mechanism is loaded into the overall structure, held into place by another device to where the mechanism cannot get out. So, we have potential now...but, it needs direction....a path (tricky part). The load from the mechanism applies itself directly to one side of the "wheel", the other side of the "wheel" is empty.....on the ascending side, the load from the mechanism is transferred to the maintaining device that holds the mechanism in, traps it in.

I can bring up a bunch of Bessler sayings and witness statements that helped bring me to this point. Many, many tests and experiments (in SIM world primarily) trying to just see what it would take to accelerate a certain diameter wheel, from 0-50...in 2 to 3 rotations....it takes a lot! Try it!

The weights for the Merseburg wheel weighed about 4 lbs. each. Any of you with a real world set up....just try this. See what it takes to get this result, and the reports say it accelerated fluidly...not jerky (this thing was regulated). The Merseburg wheel is the only one I am aware of that mentions the actual value of one of it's weights....that's why I used this as an example. I would have preferred more information on the Gera or Draschwitz wheels.....those are where it all started and would probably reveal the most information about the basic principle he employed.

So....approaching this from the opinion that "gravity is the source....", I present the above theory. There is a mechanism that has constant potential and it just needs a path....a direction and this will need to be regulated to maintain and control the off balance (and what an off balance it will be!).....and that path is "somewhere in nature...".


Steve

P.S. CF....use it....or lose it!

[Bessler007]

There is a good chance Bessler cannibalized his wheels to make other wheels for the same reasons we do. Economy of time and space.

The Merseburg wheel is the only one I am aware of that mentions the actual value of one of it's weights....t

I am so behind on this thread....I have been trying to catch up on it for a week now. This is one of the better threads I have seen in a long time as far as really throwing some approaches and theories out there for many to discuss and digest. The feedback has been some of the best I have seen in a couple of years!

So....approaching this from the opinion that "gravity is the source....", I present the above theory. There is a mechanism that has constant potential and it just needs a path....a direction and this will need to be regulated to maintain and control the off balance (and what an off balance it will be!).....and that path is "somewhere in nature...".

Where is this natural path? ovyyus explained why the example of a fluid river isn't that path. Do you think differently and if so why?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bess...

There is a good chance Bessler cannibalized his wheels to make other wheels for the same reasons we do. Economy of time and space.

Not much argument there....he does mention that the velocity is proportional to the diameter and the weights. For this reason, I do not think he reused the same weights, maybe the same material and modified it...again, just a thought on that portion.

Where is this natural path? ovyyus explained why the example of a fluid river isn't that path. Do you think differently and if so why?

Heck, if I knew just where it was I would tell ya! That was just a little tidbit that Bessler had mentioned as far as the principle goes....that it was to be found in nature, or something like that....the river example is just that, an example...that discussion had more to do with thermal cycle and the rise/fall of precipitation (if there is no rise, there is no fall....if there is no fall, there is no rise...chicken/egg)....that is not what I am alluding to here. Sorry if that came out wrong, Bess.

If I have a constant applied force without direction....I have nothing but a loaded mechanism that sits there....does nothing...waiting to be released. His one directional wheels had to be tied off...It is my understanding that they had to be. This means that they were already loaded...off balance, so there had to be a force applying itself all the time...and it could be thermal...or a reset off balance that is caused by CF. We really don't know much more, do we?


Steve