Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

[Fletcher]

One of the better explanations I've read at overunity.com [poster >mondrasek] - thought it worth reposting here so it didn't get lost - should be food for thought for all Gravity Only advocates ??!!


"Gravity is an acceleration field (NOT a Force). It is also highly uniform, meaning it is always in the same direction and magnitude, within a reasonable space. This acceleration field acts upon mass to create a Force since Force = mass x acceleration (F = ma). If you take any mass at a location close to the Earth's surface, the acceleration of gravity combines with it to produce a force. This force will drive the object towards the center of the Earth's mass. So objects fall if dropped or push down on whatever surface that supports them. If we move that object to the left, right, up, or down, it experiences the same Force due to the acceleration of gravity. (The last statement is only true for relatively small distances. Moving away from the surface of the Earth to say the orbit of the moon does decrease the apparent acceleration due to gravity. Also, moving left until you are on the other side of the Earth will give you a force in the opposite direction, but still towards the center of the Earth. But for the purposes of building a gravity wheel of normal scale, the acceleration field is uniform in strength and direction.)

The simplest way to extract energy from the force of gravity acting on a mass is to allow the mass to accelerate towards the Earth. That motion can do work, like lift another object through a pulley. Or generate electricity by spinning a wheel. But in each and every case the falling mass can generate only a specific amount of energy while falling, ie. turning with the wheel from the top of the wheel to the bottom. That amount of energy is known as the Potential Energy and is directly related to the magnitude of the mass and the distance of the drop from top to bottom. And that amount of energy that can be gained due to the acceleration of gravity is the same whether the mass falls straight down, turns on the path of a wheel, or takes any other path. But once it has fallen, the mass has no potential energy. The only way to get more energy out of it is to raise it back to the top of the wheel. And raising it takes exactly the same amount of energy as it generated when falling the first time. Again, the path (straight, circular, or any other) makes no difference.

A wheel with equal mass on both sides will not spin because the force on both sides is equal. This generates zero Torque. Torque = Force x distance (from center of the wheel to the center of every mass, horizontally only). You add torques from all mass on a wheel to see if you have any left over by assigning a + or - sign to clockwise and counterclockwise. So if we say clockwise is +, we add all the torques due to mass that want to make the wheel spin clockwise, and then subtract all the torques due to mass that make the wheel want to spin counterclockwise. If a wheel does not spinning (and has no holding brake), the torque on it is zero.

So to get a gravity wheel to spin we need to have a total Torque due to mass that is not zero: one side must always have more Force due to gravity than the other. Since F = ma, we only have three choices. The mass must always be less on one side, the acceleration due to gravity must always be less on one side, or we need to introduce some other Force. So far, modern man has not been able to do either of these first two things. Adding another force is easy: just hook it up to a motor. But that takes more energy than you produce and is not perpetual motion.

The question for gravity wheel builders is "How do I move a mass from the bottom of the wheel to the top using less force than F = ma?" Without antigravity it would appear impossible. But I personally question if it is impossible in light of the reports of Bessler.

Man has been using Gravity Wheels for many generations. But they are not perpetual, per se. A simple example is a water wheel, which works on the same basic principal as every modern hydroelectric power station. Water falls from higher up to lower down due to the acceleration of gravity acting on its mass. The water spins a wheel or turbine. In this case the water is moved back up again by the energy input from the sun. The sun heats and evaporates water that then becomes less dense than air, causing it to rise. When it cools again, it will eventually fall back to Earth as rain or snow. A portion of that rain and snow falls to Earth higher than the hydroelectric power station and will again fall through the turbine and repeat this cycle.

M."

[ovyyus]

Great post.

... Since F = ma, we only have three choices. The mass must always be less on one side, the acceleration due to gravity must always be less on one side, or we need to introduce some other Force. So far, modern man has not been able to do either of these first two things...

Therefore, Bessler's mechanism and resultant wheel overbalance was driven by "some other Force". How many candidates are there for this other Force?

[Michael]

Edit; sorry Fletcher, despite the title at first it looked like you were believing in gravity wheels. What are your thoughts?

[Fletcher]

I just copied the thread title from Overunity.com Michael [for context], so not my choice of words.

Oh, I believe in gravity wheels alright as a mechanism to create torque but not in gravity as a source of energy etc etc etc ;7)

[greendoor]

Boring & unimaginative post. I am a believer in self sustaining gravity power, and I believe this is what Bessler & more recent inventors have successfully exploited.

There was a time when sailors of wind powered sailboats assumed it would always be impossible to sail into the wind. If the wind wasn't blowing their way, their square sailed boats couldn't sail. But a few thousand years ago, some genius figured out a way, using a triangular sail, that allowed sailors to sail into the wind. I suppose he was called an idiot for dreaming the impossible, but results speak for themselves and it's considered normal now.

I agree with most of the facts in that post - just not the stupid assumption that is made about the facts.

I'm not arguing that gravity is a 'wind' - although that could certainly be debated. I simply accept that gravity is a force that can cause an acceleration (or possibly just acceleration that can cause a force - either way, the numbers work and mass accelerates).

Bessler made it abundantly clear that we won't find a source of energy from an overbalanced wheel. I don't know why we pursue this 'perfect path' philosopy that will always lead nowhere.

The force acting on every atom of matter does not go away. Given a chance, a brick will accelerate, gaining velocity until it hits the ground. When it hits the ground, the force of gravity hasn't diminished at all - that force is constantly exerted on the ground. If the ground should suddenly give way, the brick will continue on it's way again. This is an amazing source of power - and the only thing stopping it from being used is that we run out of height (because we assume, like the square-sail sailors of old) that there is only one way to use the force of gravity.

This issue of 'height' is a bit misleading. We have been told that 'height' is potential energy - but I find this very misleading. A position in space is simply a position in space. There is no magic energy stored up in a position in space. There is no pent up energy in this mythical 'potential energy' - it's an academic myth. The maths looks convincing - because it obviously works for a lot of situations - but don't be fooled by this.

Sorry i'm not revealing my theory why I believe this 100% - this will have to wait until I have solid experimental proof, so feel free to disregard anything I say.

If I believed for 1 second that gravity power was impossible, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. For me, this forum has been a fantastic source of information & ideas. I'm guilty of propagating a lot of crazy ideas that would never work - I don't plan on doing that anymore. But I don't want people to get the idea that this whole search for gravity power is pointles - far from it.

I do think trying to expoit CF is pointless - that won't please many people here. But with any proposed mechanism, there has to be an obvious source of energy input. Gravity is an obvious source - but you have to be clever not to lose height unnecessarily - just like a sailboat sailing into the wind needs to gain energy from the wind, but not lose distance unecessarily. It's not easy - and the method is easily missed (like it was for aeons before the triangular sail was invented).

This reminds of a way to catch a monkey ... you put some peanuts in a jar, with a neck that is wide enough for the monkey's hand to enter, but not wide enough to allow the monkey's hand to exit while grasping the peanuts. The jar is tethered with a rope, and the monkey gets trapped because he just won't let go of the peanuts.

To use gravity power, you need to let go of your peanuts ... 'greed is an evil root' ... he wasn't kidding.

[Michael]

Greendoor you said you've given a lot of bad ideas on the forum before but won't do this again. Was this on purpose or were you learning? I ask because I am also struggling to understand a bit of where you are coming from. You say you believe in gravity power but don't believe in the typical ways ( overbalanced, speed, etc. ) that people often consider.

But then you say things like this;

The rising weights certainly have to move faster - otherwise this overbalanced situation would not remain for very long. This reminds me of the classic spinning ice skater example used to demonstrate the conservation of angular momentum (pull your hands in to your chest, and your speed of rotation increases). However, somebody recently pointed out that the human skater example is hopelessly flawed, because muscle power is exerted to bring the arms in towards the body against the (imaginary) centrifugal force.

AFAIK - even Bessler needed an energy input to accelerate those rising weights. That's what we need to look for first.

... And I still think that somewhere in the mechanism Impact or Collision is involved. If not in the Stamper box, then elsewhere

.

[primemignonite]

Ovyyus inquires of us all thusly: " . . . How many candidates are there for this other Force?"

To which I answer: I don't know, but count me IN for being half of one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something is wrong with my understanding of part of what "M" has allowed, compliments of Fletcher.

He instructs us that gravity is an ". . . acceleratin field (NOT a force) . . ." !

As I understand it, when mass is not under the influence of gravity, it possesses 'inertial mass' of a certain quantity, this depending upon the quantity atoms of the material present. When that, the 'inertial mass', comes under the influence of gravity, it then possesses 'gravitational mass' which is added to the inertial. The first is absolutely constant when not in motion; the second varies according to the amount of pull applied to the mass by gravity when motionless.

With that understood and accepted as accurate (if so), I then ask, how can gravity not be 'a force' with respect to a mass, accelerated or not???

Could someone knowledgeable point out my error and address the question? Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=

And finally, Ovyyus, since I have answered your question fully and in true, good faith, I would like to inquire of you thusly: What is your 'inertial mass'? Might you care to reveal it in public? In kilograms, would be fine. Thanks.

James

[ovyyus]

What is your 'inertial mass'?

It's the same as my gravitational mass ;)


BTW, by 'candidates', I meant 'options'. If we exclude gravity and inertia as potential energy sources for obvious reasons (some have yet to get there), then what options are left?

[rounder]

Just as it is easier to pull a heavy weight up a incline
Than it is too dead lift it.

[daxwc]

No wonder Albert Einstein couldn't unify the forces, he missed memo that one was an acceleration field.

[BAR]

Ok gravitation works by a density shift though homogenious objects like nuclear matter. All atomic nuclei are near the limit density of (4piGx csquared) The gravitational field is a 4th dimensional process that exhibits inverse square intensity and when nuclei have a density shift from gravitation they have an energy imbalance that must seek to restore which can not happen. Action and reaction the nuclei changes position in space towards the gravitational source.

[justsomeone]

Bar, OH.... now I understand. ;)

[jim_mich]

BTW, by 'candidates', I meant 'options'. If we exclude gravity and inertia as potential energy sources for obvious reasons (some have yet to get there), then what options are left?

Why do we need to exclude inertia?

I believe Bessler's wheel was a Maxwell's Demon type mechanism that used CF (a form of inertia) to self-sort weights into faster and slower speeds, thus increasing the ectropy or usable energy of the system. The faster speed brings about increased centrifugal force while the slower speed brings about decreased centrifugal force. This causes the faster weights to move even faster and the slower weights to move even slower; a sort of 'crack the whip' scenario. This difference of CF is always in the same unbalanced direction, thus you have a continuous unbalanced force to push the wheel forward.

I believe Bessler's wheels gained excess energy from the cosmic forces of nature that give two objects inertial kinetic forces that are relative to the square of the speed difference of the two objects.


My prototype (a few weeks ago) failed because of stretching of certain plastic component parts used in the system. I'm now searching for a different material to use.

[BAR]

Maxwell's Demon are you kidding? Reality has no such thing inless it is faster than Plancks constant. Then we can never know anyway. Besslers wheel worked by conventional physics. Simple as that.

[Michael]

Maxwell's Demon are you kidding? Reality has no such thing inless it is faster than Plancks constant. Then we can never know anyway. Besslers wheel worked by conventional physics. Simple as that.

Jims Maxwell demon was an example to something else. Inertia isn't a part of conventional physics? You might want to reread some of Bessler,..alsetalokin? I was told that was what your name is, is that right?