Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

[greendoor]

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

.

Hi Michael - a good question deserves a good answer. I've been interested in free energy ideas since the late 1980's - and i've long believed that physics as taught is not quite right, and very possibly there has been some suppression of some technologies that probably quite rightly should belong to the military.

I stumbled across this Bessler site - from memory - about 2 years ago, and became very interested in gravity wheels. This is largely because I am convinced of the validity of the Bessler story, and it seemed like a project a crude engineer with ordinary materials might be able to build.

I went through a steep learning curve, and many forum members here have helped me see the folly of some of my ideas. If you bothered to look up all my posts (which I don't recommend) you will see a lot of rubbish. If I could delete them, I would.

Fairly recently, I came across a theory from somebody who has posted here, and in other forums, with some maths that made me see this problem from a completely different perspective. The viewpoints of this person seem to be univesally dismissed and ignored - I can only see this as some sort of wilful ignorance or blindness. Doing research, I have found other people with essentially the same idea (that there are flaws with some of the basic kinematic assumptions and the concept of Energy). It takes a bit of faith to consider that we have been misled for centuries - but the logic is compelling very for me.

On pondering this viewpoint and comparing it with all the Bessler clues available, i've come to my own theory of the basic principle that Bessler used. I could be completely wrong, but I don't think i'm completely stupid, and i've explored every other option I can think of. I've written some software to model my basic idea, and the numbers look good. All that remains is to build an experiment that proves the energy gain - and i'm slowing working on this as time & money permits.

I'm sorry, i've come from a position of sharing any & all ideas that enter my head, to one of those horrible people who won't share until I see some physical evidence. This is for several reasons:

1 - there are some very harsh critics who will never believe even if they are hit over the head with a working Bessler wheel. Much time & resources could be wasted in pointless debate with such people - and they tend to be the vocal majority.
2 - i've seen other people try to defend theories here - it's just pointless.
3 - I have genuine concerns about greed. The major contributors here are a great bunch of clever people - but there are thousands of guests and viewers, and we don't know who they are or what they are here for.

It's not my intention to mislead anyone - i've said far too much already. But anything I do say, it's because I believe it to be true (at that point in time anyway).

[AB Hammer]

IMO there have been some good ideas that have never been properly explored. And may have only been half wittily tried. Poor construction could be the damning reason for a small few that may otherwise had worked. It is just a passing thought.

[jim_mich]

Why do we need to exclude inertia?

Because, like gravity, all evidence to date supports the conclusion that inertia is conservative. Until you (or anyone else) can demonstrate otherwise then inertia is obviously excluded as an energy source. I think Bessler exploited a real energy source to overbalance his wheels.

Yes, inertia is conservative. I've never said otherwise. But inertia is not constant like gravity. The inertia of one body can and often does transfer to another body. The force of gravity is very constant in regards to any particular body such as the Earth.

Because inertia can be transferred between bodies, its conservative nature does not exclude it from being indirectly used as a Bessler wheel source of energy.

Kinetic energy is not conservative. It varies directly as the square of the speed difference of two objects. When one moving object transfers inertial energy to another moving object then the quantity of kinetic energy that is available to be harnessed changes. This change of available kinetic energy can be an increase or a decrease.

Under most circumstances here on planet Earth kinetic energy is measured relative to Earth. Thus the kinetic energy of any moving object increases and decreases in a direct ratio to any work done to or by the object. Contrary to what was posted in another thread, objects do not have or store kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the direct result of an object speeding up, slowing down or changing direction. Kinetic energy is not linear. It varies by the square of the speed change. Thus an object that speeds up to double speed gains twice the inertial momentum energy but it also gains four times the kinetic potential relative to stationary Earth.

Remember that kinetic energy is only a measure of usable energy due to the motion of one body relative to a second body. Kinetic energy is caused by inertia. It is not something that is stored in a moving weight. Rather it is energy that appears magically due to the change of motion of objects. (It comes from the ether background fabric of space.)

If two objects are moving at similar speeds (Einstein might say that they are stationary relative to each other) then there is little kinetic energy available when the inertial momentum of one object is harnessed against the inertial resistance of the other object. But if the two objects are moving toward or away from each other (one is moving relative to the other) then there magically becomes available kinetic energy. This kinetic energy comes about from the change of motion of one object against another object. This energy comes not from any stored energy within the objects, but it comes from the change of speed between two objects.

Thus you can have two objects moving relative to the Earth each at a speed of 3 units and each will have kinetic energy of 3×3=9 relative to the Earth. Thus they will have a total available kinetic energy of 18 units. But if the two objects are moving in opposite directions then the total available kinetic energy of one object to the other object become 6×6=36 units.

Kinetic energy is the direct result of the inertia of one object relative to another object. As such kinetic energy is never conservative. Thus it seems wrong to rule out inertia as a source of energy for a Bessler wheel simply because inertia is conservative.

[daxwc]

Very good post Jim. Flaws, maybe, but I like it, lets see what the dogs do to it.

[Michael]

The viewpoints of this person seem to be univesally dismissed and ignored

Was it Ken B. ? Though you probably would have said by now.

[greendoor]

I agree that inertia/momentum is conserved. I also agree that energy can't (always) be conserved. We have been misled about energy, imo.

Take a formula such as E = 1/2MV^2 ... seems to be based on hard facts, but this formula is just a mathematical abstration that doesn't represent the reality of what energy really is, outside of certain textbook experiments.

The "1/2" in the formula is from the Average calculation of D = (U+V)/2. This calculation is only for uniformly accelerating velocity, which is always the case when the acceleration force is gravity, but is not always the case with machines.

This formula can be proven to be in conflict with other kinematic equations in certain situations - simply proving that this formula should only be used in specific situations, and cannot be relied upon as an equation that always represents what energy is.

We simply can't argue that both Momentum & Energy are always conserved all the time. The formulas are contradictory. Which means to me that our concept of energy is flawed, and it is quite possible to both lose and create energy on demand.

[BAR]

Under most circumstances here on planet Earth kinetic energy is measured relative to Earth. Thus the kinetic energy of any moving object increases and decreases in a direct ratio to any work done to or by the object. Contrary to what was posted in another thread, objects do not have or store kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the direct result of an object speeding up, slowing down or changing direction. Kinetic energy is not linear. It varies by the square of the speed change. Thus an object that speeds up to double speed gains twice the inertial momentum energy but it also gains four times the kinetic potential relative to stationary Earth.

Remember that kinetic energy is only a measure of usable energy due to the motion of one body relative to a second body. Kinetic energy is caused by inertia. It is not something that is stored in a moving weight. Rather it is energy that appears magically due to the change of motion of objects. (It comes from the ether background fabric of space.)

Hmmm so kinetic energy is caused by magic now? :):) I guess the universe is really magic if one thinks about it. :) Kinetic energy is not inertia. Inertia of an entity can possess zero velocity and zero kinetic energy. I can see why my statement of kinetic energy being stored can be confusing so I will explain. You are right that there must be a velocity difference between 2 entities to exchange kinetic energy or momentum. A differential must always be present to exchange energy just like objects must have different temperatures to make use of the thermal energy. For example two 1gram pieces of ice at 0 Celsius if adiabatically insulated will not exchange thermal energy. Doe this mean the ice contains no thermal energy? Where did the 2300 Joules go? Simply the inability to exchange energy is not the same as energy being non existant. There is a concept known as invariant mass which is the rest mass energy of an entity that is the same in all frames of reference. Total energy of a system is the rest mass plus the kinetic. If one believes in the Aether, so then one must also believe in the possibility of zero motion. Invariant mass also accepts zero motion relative to all frames as well. This means any motion independant of frames must possess momentum and therefore kinetic energy. Just because 2 entities possessing the same velocity and direction can not exchange kinetic energy does not mean absolutely they do not possess any kinetic energy at all. Energy and mass are interchangible, so if kinetic energy is not stored then why does mass appear to increase with velocity? For example if 2 mass entitys were absolutely at rest and a measured force was imparted between them, their reaction to the force would be much greater than if those same entitys were moving with a very high velocity approaching that of light. This is due to an apparent increase of mass from the velocity and hence kinetic energy and total momentum. Can momentum exist without kinetic energy? Can kinetic energy exist without momentum?

As for the validity of the formula for kinetic energy it only becomes invariant at relativistic velocitys. Other than that I have never seen one instance of its failure, that does not mean its impossible just I have not seen it.

[pequaide]

Fletcher quote: 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.

Pequaide answer; This is true; it has the same energy but not the same momentum. You are basically quoting the Law of Conservation of Energy as proof that gravity wheels won’t work. But there is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy, and the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy in systems like this is always conserved. It is by definition that energy is conserved, often not by practice.

I have about a 4,000 g wheel that can be accelerated by 10 g. After the 10 g has dropped 58.3 cm the circumference velocity of the wheel is .17647 m/sec (photo gates). No doubt the kinetic energy of this wheel is the same (less bearing resistance) as a freefall of the ten gram mass the same distance, but the momentum is hugely larger.

If you can consolidate the momentum of the wheel into a much smaller mass, as I have done with hundreds of different wheels and cylinders and disks with different masses, then the Law of Conservation of Energy becomes a false concept.

You can quote the definitions of energy conservation laws or you can build perpetual gravity wheels.

[primemignonite]

As BAR wryly allows to us: "Hmmm so kinetic energy is caused by magic now? :):) . . ."

Oh yeah!

LMAO!

When I saw that "magically" word appear, I KNEW some serous beard was GOING TO FLY!!!

A dangerous one indeed, when it gets tossed into discussions of physics sans contouring.

Next time, Jim, how about ' as if by magic'??? This way, among physicists, only ONE eyebrow
goes up for just an instant, reflexively.

:-)

James

[jim_mich]

Fire is magic.
Telephones are magic.
Automobiles are magic.
Phonographs are magic.
Movies are magic.
Radios are magic.
Gravity is magic.
Airplanes are magic.
Televisions are magic.
Inertia is magic.
Videophones are magic.

Magic is doing what seems impossible.

I believe in magic.

[Fletcher]

pequaide .. this is where I have a bit of trouble & this applies to jim_mich's explanations as well - we live in a kinetic world [as far as mechanical machines are concerned] - it is through motion & mass that we are able to apply leverage - take one or other away & no leverage, no usable force, no usable energy.

So if two objects start at zero velocity [relative to the earth] & move in any direction a couple of things become apparent - first the force you need to apply to overcome inertia & get them up to speed is exactly the same amount of energy/force required to slow them down & bring them to a halt again [assuming for the moment moving perpendicular to gravity] - quid pro quo - the next is that the capacity to do work is kinetic energy, not momentum which are different units from energy & means something different - it's relative inertia or resistance [drag] to change in motion, either accelerating or decelerating or changing direction.

What does this mean to me - well I may have an over simplified view of how this world works but kinetic energy is the benchmark for mechanical work so that's the sum I take most note of - in your example it would be the kinetic energy of the flywheel after the drop weight has acted that would seem important to me - anytime momentum is mentioned I immediately want to know what that translates to in energy joules, so I can get an idea of the work it could do if put to work - but then we've had this discussion before ;)

P.S. one good thing about gravity is that it is 100% thrust efficient & even if it can't give back more than it takes it also won't rob you with losses associated with it like ordinary combustion engines used to drive things do.

[greendoor]

Fletcher - how do you reconcile the conservation of momentum with the conservation of energy? They can't both be right.

P = MV

E = 1/2MV^2 (supposedly)

Newtons cradle and other experiments show that momentum is conserved - which means that we can transfer momentum from a heavy mass to a lighter mass and observe an increase in velocity.

When velocity increases - supposedly the energy increases with the square of that velocity. I haven't studied this much yet - I believe this was Leibnez dropping weights in clay that made this assumption, and I know i'm not the only person having problems with Leibnez.

But very obviously - both equations can't both be right. If momentum is conserved and velocity changes, then energy must change. The real world object doesn't give a rats about which equation is right or wrong - it is what it is, regardless. Mathematical abstractions can be useful, but they not always right.

I think this is an example of equations that are right in some situations being applied in the wrong situations.

[Fletcher]

Yes, momentum is observed to be conserved, be it linear or rotational - I take that as a given or absolute.

It would appear that energy is also conserved but it seems many literally take that to mean kinetic energy - Ke is only one type of energy - it is one side of a many sided polygon - Ke just happens to be the only form we can use for mechanical arrangements where a force is needed to be applied to move something else - sum ALL the energy's & I think they energy equation balances ?!

So in some examples you can change the quotient of Ke [the usable kind] but always at the expense of the others that just haven't had time to play yet.

There I go, over simplifying things again.

[primemignonite]

Jim_Mich unqualifiedly informs us that

"Fire is magic.
Telephones are magic.
Automobiles are magic.
Phonographs are magic.
Movies are magic.
Radios are magic.
Gravity is magic.
Airplanes are magic.
Televisions are magic.
Inertia is magic.
Videophones are magic."

As to all the above (and a few more that I might add)
we two peas are of the self-same pod. (After "Phono-
graphs" above, I would add 'wax cylinder', which is my
business.)

(Have you, Jim, ever heard the great Salvini utter the
dramatic phrase from The Death Of Othello, as recorded
in 1899 for Lieut. Bettini??? If not, you have not yet lived.)

Our problem, Jim, is that the serious 'pro' physics crowd
do not evince much of a humor sense, as I have observed,
while in that mode. After hours, one could hope-so.

(I believe that we may now have among us, perhaps one
or two of the kind? If-so, the honor is ours and sure.)

As to the final informance allowed "Magic is doing
what seems impossible."

And here, when used, the very key is that lets us off our hook -
"seems".

Essential qualification, which, like it's co-equal brethren,
should be more used, yes?

When I observe Bessler's Wheel "goeth of it self", as if a living
thing breathed into life from dead material, that will be as close
to the real thing as we will ever get here, on this side of eternity!

James (Pres. D.D.G. )

[ovyyus]

"Magic is doing what seems impossible."