Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

[daxwc]

I don't think he said destroyed... he said lost. Don't ever go to the police saying you destroyed your child ;)

[Michael]

Take a second look. He was making fun of the fact of where physicists say that energy goes. He was definately implying the energy is destroyed.

[daxwc]

Oh, I agree he was implying it 8))) Or maybe he just meant it was going to the 5th dimension, where it was lost, as he did not really clarify.

[BAR]

The confusion here is assuming that momentum IS doing work as energy. It takes work in the form of kinetic energy to cause momentum. It takes work to cancel momentum. Momentum contains energy but is not energy. Momentum is a form of potential energy. No laws are violated. Joule first tried to measure this with motion and heat and to this day I have never seen any violation in the creation or destruction of energy. Hope that clears things up. :)

[daxwc]

I think that is what he was trying to say anyway, that physicists measure it wrong and there is hidden energy stored.

[primemignonite]

"I think that is what he was trying to say anyway, that physicists measure it wrong and there is hidden energy stored." - daxwc

For one, I surely do hope that what he was trying to say turns-so, but, so far the Big Score Board looks just like this:

The Physicists - 100

The Dissenters - 0

Have you (or anyone else) arguments with this?

If so . . . then THE SUCCESS itself which we may all openly examine, please.

As it is with the majority as regards the D.D.G. proposition (which group I am spokesman for), it is not a thing very pleasant to contemplate, and is why it is particularly painful when they joyfully kick us in our guts while down, such as Dircks, Simanek and dozens of others of their huffing and puffing, bullying and strutting, arrogant ilk! (NOT nice!)

James

PS If any are bewildered by my too apparent angst, here is a perfect example of the lab coated species-peculiar, hard at dirty work:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm

This personage who plays at "author", has the predictable gall to write like this, toward the end of his dubious screed: "We have no intention to ridicule sincere perpetual motion seekers." And THIS after putting the finishing touches onto having done just that!

Given this impertinence, I would tend to impute possibilities of insanity in-the-reverse, if really pressed!

[BAR]

I believe there are 3 possible reasons why we do not see self regenerative gravity engines:

1. They exist and have been built and are kept top secret. Probably the same level of seriousness as UFO's.

2. The scientific community is so brainwashed to the impossibility that no one will take a serious look at the possibility. If anyone with credit did they would be ridiculed to shame.

3. The big corporations that make money from the expenditure of fuels and energy supply would be in big trouble.

Now this I guarantee, things are going to change very soon friends. :)

[primemignonite]

BAR, that's a good one, but might there be one other possibility?

Such as

4. The physicists are correct as they always have been: it IS impossible!

To be fair?

And finally (and kindly) you brace us all up with "Now this I guarantee, things are going to change very soon friends. :)"

I do hope you are right, truly I do.

Presently, I am big on the Abeling; but you already know that.

James

[greendoor]

For another perspective - check out http://nov55.com/ener.html This is worthy of some serious study.

Also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz - an interesting dude, not sure if he was madman or genius ... either way, he's to blame :)

[BAR]

BAR, that's a good one, but might there be one other possibility?

Such as

4. The physicists are correct as they always have been: it IS impossible!

To be fair?

And finally (and kindly) you brace us all up with "Now this I guarantee, things are going to change very soon friends. :)"

Sure physicists could still be right but I do not believe so anymore. Believe it or not, I WAS them. I was as anti-perpetual as they come. Infact I got so bored with bashing those who sought perpetual motion machines I just did not even bother anymore.

However last fall I came across a website that had unusual mysteries that were never explained. They mentioned Bessler and after further looking I came across a reference that Leibniz believed Bessler was not a fraud. Deceiving the co inventer of calculus had to be very tough so I thought I would give it a try with my skeptical hat on. After looking at perhaps 50 types of perpetual machines that failed, I noticed a serious flaw they all had in common. Then I decided to design one using everything I know about physics and how I believe it could work. After several weeks I found a way to do it. Now I have NOT built it yet. The math fits, but there is a very slim chance I am missing something. So I am setting up to build it. ;)

[primemignonite]

BAR,

I somehow sensed that you were one! Excellent!

There is a class of physicists that are defectors,
basically, and they all seem to have one factor to
their stories in-common: disillusionment and for
good reasons.

Yes, dear and great Leibniz! You may run across
his writing on this site wherein he expresses heart-
felt concern for Bessler, and he tried to help him out
but DIED during it! This has always been the very
touching part to me. He was oh-so-precautious writing
and writing, and inquiring of those who had seen, and
doing more, all before ever going near it - the mechanical
chimera. That happened twice, as I recall.

There are other larger names that were involved who
believed as Leibniz did. A tough nut but fair-to-a-fault,
was Dutchman 'sGravesande, my particular favorite
in this fascinating saga.

On Stewart's personal forum you will find his fine
translation of his 'apologia' of a sort. He seemed
convinced that extra energy might lurk within impact,
and wrote of it at-length, and with true Dutch esprit.
I down-loaded it and will re-set it into a fine type face
befitting and then, print some copies onto old looking, laid
paper for maximum correct effect. (I am sure he would
have approved.)

Prof. Fischer, I believe, was yet another, a really big one
at the time. Like Leibniz, he was engraved very grandly,
looking much like Mr. Handel, late of London.

It is exciting news, that you maybe have something. I hope
your building skills are up to your intellectual ones. I trust
that they are.The two are rather dissimilar, you know.

Kindest Regards,

James

[broli]

BAR are you saying Bessler managed to tap the quantum momentum properties of an atom?

[broli]

pequaide, isn't it kind of funny that that supposedly lost energy is due to heat, sound and other factors.

What is the definition of a force? It's the CHANGE in momentum. Hey waaaait a second. If there were losses this means just like wind friction (non conservative force) the bullet lost momentum due to a non conservative force changing its momentum. So how the hell can it be conserved and at the same time assume energy is not conserved by that ridiculous margin which you have wrong btw :p. It's 25 875% energy LOSS!!!! How more ridiculous can they get, geez.

Their speed of their bullet is correct but that's because they assumed correctly that momentum is conserved. But as you clearly show CoE and CoM cannot both hold at the same time. But experiment favor CoM.

[greendoor]

FWIW - I personally don't think that the massive energy gains or losses seen in the calculations I gave above are real. I was giving them as evidence that there is something screwy with the usual maths for energy.

IMO, Momentum is the correct thing to be concerned with - and we can see that this is a conserved quantity. So no massive overunity gains can be achieved during a transfer of momentum - as far as I can see. If we want a working gravity wheel, we need to come up with the surplus momentum first.

My logic to support this belief:

Consider a simple pendulum. At 12:00 it starts with highest PE and zero velocity/zero momentum. As it falls it accelerates under G force, and at 6:00 it has achieved maximum velocity/maximum momentum and lowest PE.

It's the ascent from 6:00 that interest me. We know that a simple pendulum mass dropped from 12:00 will swing almost full circle - due to friction losses. Otherwise it would return to where it fell from.

The only source of motion accelerating it upwards is it's own momentum. G force is no longer working for it - it has to fight against G force. So as far as I can see, momentum is a known quantity for raising a mass against gravity. If we have momentum, we know that we can raise a mass against gravity. I think it is safe to assume that if we can transfer a know quantity of momentum to a mass, we can easily calculate the velocity it will attain and the height it could rise in an ascending pendulum arrangement.

If we have a quantity of 'energy' (a number) i'm not so sure that this has any absolute meaning ... considering that 'energy' appears to be lost or created depending on velocity ... as far as i'm concerned, 1/2MV^2 is a mathematical abstraction that is useful in certain calculations, but does not represent motive power properly and seems to be very confusing.

[Grimer]

...
What is the definition of a force?
...

I recognised early in my career when working on the strength of materials that Force was simply an alias. An alias for unacknowledged strain.

I remember once suggesting this to a freshly minted Ph.D. from Cambridge who was quite shocked by my suggestion, He said.

"Look, I press against this wall and I can feel the force in my finger."

I answered, "What you are feeling in the deformation of your finger, the strain in your finger. If your finger didn't deform, didn't strain, you wouldn't feel anything.

The fact that stress was just another name for the strain of the thing that was doing the stressing struck me most forcibly when we were measuring the full stress strain curve of concrete prisms using an identical prism of steel covered in strain gauges as the load cell. I could see that we could have been measuring the properties of steel with the same setup, in which case the strain gauge in the concrete would have been our load cell and would have given us our "stress" on the steel.

I know it's hard to ditch a concept one has used since school but it becomes easier as time goes by.