If gravity acts like a constant stream or a river carrying everything with it then how does a cork carried from the head of the river all the way down to the ocean ever get back up to the head again? Isn't that the full cycle?
My words
The analogy was suggested to prove that gravity, although a conservative force according to mainstream physics, has the same features under some circumstances, as flowing water and the wind.
Your words
The analogy doesn't add any more insight into that dilemma than we originally had.
As I said before the analogy is there to show wind and water flow are also conservative forces and as they can drive machinery so can gravity, as in Bessler's wheel.
In my paper I made three points and the first was to suggest that gravity wheels did not break the law of conservation of energy.
The second was to suggest that just because gravity is a conservative force does not mean that it can't be used as in Bessler's wheel. So both those points were answered - the second one by the wind/water analogy.
The third one was a suggestion that, although mainstream physics says that because the path of a falling object is not necessary to the working out of the amount of work done by gravity, making weights move out on the falling side of the wheel and back again on the rising side, has no mechanical advantage - in fact, because of the presence of more than one weight in the system there will be a mechanical advantage.
The different paths of ascending and falling weights can, to use Bill's analogy, get the cork back up to the head of the river.
But you don't need to watch a cork float all the way down the river, you just submerge a small wheel in the river and watch it turn, because its paddles are curved, so that the cup shape catches the flow and the reverse side moves back up stream against the flow.
The same applies to an anemometer in the wind for instance. Three cups is all it takes for the axle to revolve. Two cups won't spin, but more will.
I'm thinking of the pendulum oscillating. Is the average power 0?
if there are no losses, yes, it's a zero sum.
but how can there be negative power?
In rotational systems, power is related to the torque (τ) and rotational velocity. Positive velocities are ccw and negative ones are cw.
In your example of dropping a mass when it bounces off the floor, heading back up would be considered negative power. Lateral movement to the force moving the mass is zero work/power.
What are you guys doing that are posting sooooo many post a day?!!!
Reading and thinking. Today I paid a bill and bought some material I plan on using to make a working gravity powered wheel. :) Well, maybe I'll just make another example of how not to make a working gravity wheel.
I do plan on reviewing your question a few more times.
If I had a weight being carried/attached at the rim of a wheel would the average prime power stroke for falling and then resetting, so to speak be between 1:30 and 4:30 if viewed as a clock face?
I understand that the fall would build more force it allowed to go to 6:00 but then you would loose that gain in getting back to 1:30. What I seek is the number of degrees in the radial arc that produces the most for the least.
Now I know that this sounds a little off-the-wall coming from me. But bear with me as I have my reasons. Your probably going to tell me that it is going to cost the same no matter what the limitations of stroke is. OK if so go ahead, but I wish to see what kind of response this question will recieve.
It's an easy matter to figure the momentary torques through 180 degrees of rotation but the power calculation requires knowing the rotational velocity of the mass. You probably know when they rate the horsepower of an engine they state it at a certain rpm.
I look at a clockwise rotation the opposite of conventional physics. I consider it a positive rotation. If you calculate the sin of the angle of rotation you'll find the percentage of the mass to use to calculate the momentary torque. A 30 degree rotation (or at 1 o'clock) has 50% of the mass in torque. Around 48-49 degrees it's 75% of the mass.
At 3 o'clock or 90 degrees the mass at that moment is in a vertical drop. 100 % of the mass is torque.
Good point Doc! I've never seen a two cup anemometer so I assumed that they were of no use in measuring wind speed/force, but of course you're right and I of all people should have remembered the Savonius rotor since it was one of my first analogies!
lost my post! - let's see if this double posts. Well, I'm back for the moment (really, I'm not an addict, right? ..oh no, I'm only an "Enthusiast".... Anyway, this came across my mind...
If we have a pulley with 10kg on one side and the same on the other. If I want to lift one side with a force of, say, 10kg * 0.05 m/s^2 to a height of 10m above the present position, how much work did I have to do? The force counter to gravity (provided by the other wheel) only supplies the maintaining of a stable position, no?
So, in the case where I lift by my own hand, eventhough I'd have to supply the counter force to gravity plus the force that changes the position, the counter force to gravity only works to maintain a height and nothing more. I think this is clear, no? To be sure, you have to expend energy to maintain that force by your hand (or however), but it contributes nothing to the change in height. If it contributes nothing to the change in height, how can the Fxd definition include it?
John, if you are going to compare the analogy of wind and windmill to weight for gravity wheel, wind is the mass that makes the windmill move. With a windmill the mass of the wind isn't caused to cycle around by the windmill, to be reused by the windmill.
Good point Michael. I responded too quickly to an earlier criticism that wind is moving mass and I said that the weights acted as the moving mass, which of course they do. But as you point out the wind doesn't cycle around the windmill to be reused.
I think this is the point at which analogies fail. They can explain a point only so far and then you have to drop them.
EDIT - I have added this bit later by way of explanation as to why I use analogies. Eric Laithwaite had an endless fund of stories and anecdotes and loved to use the art of analogy to explain difficult scientific concepts, characteristics which made him one of Britain's earliest advocates for the public understanding of science. Laithwaite you will recall invented MAGLEV, another brilliant British invention sadly developed elsewhere into a successful commercial proposition. See http://www.rense.com/general42/genius.htm
In other words, Michael, I am sticking to the same analogy but accepting your point, the wind acts in a similar way to gravity in so far as they are both conservative forces and as such are both capable of being used to turn rotating devices as long as they operate.
Are you in agreement, Michael with my proposal that wind and water can act as conservative forces?
John
Last edited by John Collins on Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:41 am, edited 4 times in total.
With his water stream and wind analogies, Collins was starting to head us in what I think is the correct direction of considering local streaming “particles� with respect to gravity and getting us to think of local internal torques (from gravity) of associated local masses. He just needed to go a little bit further and to a finer level. At a particle stream level, neither gravity nor water streams nor wind are conservative “forces� as they each generally each have non-zero curl (can’t be expressed as a negative gradient of a spatial dependent potential and thus each is an excellent candidate for being used for producing continuous power). (Also see my page 6 post, Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:17 am, for this current subject, re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics.) Each varies with time when viewed quite locally. The influence of gravity, as we see below, also depends upon the angular velocity of the tiny mass-particle (with respect to the particle’s center of mass) which particle is being subjected to gravity. If one were to ask most physicists, I think that they would say there is no actual action at a distance force. In gravity or electrostatic calculations, action at a distance forces are only used to simplify the calculation (or as a matter of convenience) but that is definitely not what is really going on.
I am currently just posting for now only a few things that I think have not gotten the attention that they should have been given. On Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:18 am, p. 4 evgwheel asked What is gravity? I saw that Fletcher gave an answer (and there was later discussion). I will try my hand at answering this question, as a number of other expressed concerns hinge upon it.
I recall reading from Infinite Energy that Einstein wrote a few years before he died something as his theories of continuous structures might be castles in the sky. I think that Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity) is insufficient to explain Bessler’s gravity wheel, but the following much simpler formulation of gravity explains how the Bessler’s wheel works, along with such usual predictions as bending of starlight and red shifting of photons coming out of a source of gravity. In other words, I think it is a much better explanation of what gravity is.
I will try to explain according to my current understanding what gravity really is, using which, one can explain how things like the Bessler wheel work to produce power from gravity. Inside the earth (for example) is much neutral matter that is composed of opposite charges. A positive charge within the earth gives off E field(s) that travel away in a particular direction from the positive charge at the speed of light until it (they) eventually is (are) attractively absorbed into a negative charge. The absorption locally appears as a downward force (back in the direction that the field or fields came from). A negative charge within the earth (very nearby the positive charge within the earth) gives off E field(s) (pointing the opposite direction) that travel away (in the same particular direction) from the negative charge at the speed of light until it (they) eventually is (are) attractively absorbed into a positive charge. The absorption locally appears as a downward force (back in the direction that the field or fields came from). Very large numbers of closely originating pairs of these E fields can travel together. A parallel and anti-parallel pair of these E fields traveling together in one particular direction would be able to penetrate through anything until eventually conditions are just right and first one part will enter one charge attractively and the other part enters attractively a very nearby opposite charge. The fields each disappear down into charges opposite from those that they each originated from. That is gravity. Each pair of traveling together opposing E fields may be called a graviton. It is electromagnetic (with emphasis not on the magnetic part). See discussion under the subject of ‘two part “electrostatic� graviton’.
As there are two parts to each graviton and as there may be a slight time delay between the separate pulls downward (local downward forces applied), a very small mass particle or sub-mass rotating about a horizontal axis (through its center of mass or sub-mass) with some angular speed will have its angular speed increased because of the graviton being absorbed. Think of two opposite charges traveling at the same radius (at opposite ends of a circle about the center of the two charges) and notice the torque differentials, assuming all charges concerned have equal magnitude. The upper pull down is applied slightly after the lower one allowing the upper charge to move slightly further around the circle (before also being pulled directly downward) because of the angular speed of the sub-mass and the slight time delay. Just try making some drawings for yourself and see if this is not the case. That was on a very tiny level. The effect is transferred to larger groupings of mass which are sometimes wheels. Every wheel rotating about a horizontal axis picks up angular speed as long as the wheel has low enough total friction for the phenomena to be observed. Local angular velocity effects spread to the whole wheel and it goes the other way also. A faster rotating wheel picks up more power from gravity. The wheel speed up process continues until it is in balance with total wheel friction. That is why the Bessler wheel works and is purely gravity powered, and doesn’t violate any properly stated “laws� of Physics. Bessler discovered a basic property of the wheel. We can test out this idea now using sufficiently low friction wheels, as was done circa 1968 (when I saw and heard it work) or just note that it solves such puzzles as, for example, where the solar corona gets its power from (vast numbers of miniature nucleus-size Bessler wheels which operate nearly undisturbed near the fringes of space).
One has both the reported observations (I was one of hundreds of student witnesses of what actually happens when there is such low friction for rotation about a horizontal axis) and one has a relatively simple explanation about why that miracle of modern day technology should and did work, without violating any laws of Physics. The explanation even explains what gravity is in the process. What more could people want? Am I expected to also verify it myself or shouldn’t there really be an independent person associated with the verification? Are there any volunteers who want to build an air bearing and see a modern day Bessler wheel working? If so, be careful not to make it too low friction as it could get out of control and become dangerous (or make it as low friction as you can but safely stop it before it can become dangerous). I would probably buy such an air bearing for a reasonable price if they were available but no one on the Internet is making them available and if they did, they would likely be aware of modern-day Bessler-wheel type behavior (unless, for example, they provide their wheel with too much air friction).
See my Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:31 am, Post subject: re: two part "electrostatic" graviton, p 1.
See the 17 Feb 2007 email to Infinite Energy posted on my Internet site with a subject of “Repeat McKinley Low Friction Demonstration�
See my Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:58 am, Post subject: re: two part "electrostatic" graviton, p 1.
See my Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:22 am, Post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, p 5.
Again I repeat. We have a theory and a modern witness of a demonstration in which the theory worked. I don’t know how I could speak much more plainly than this. Is anyone out there really paying attention (or appreciate enough what is written, to try such an experiment for oneself)? If we show it working and it violated the laws of Physics, then the problem would be with our understanding of the laws of Physics, but fortunately it doesn’t violate any real “laws of Physics� according to my explanation of how it really works.
I could try to build something with a low friction air bearing rotating about a horizontal axis, but that might not be considered an independent verification, and I have not been known for being exceptionally handy. We need an independent verification of such a low friction demonstration or experiment. I suppose I could improve my talents though but aren’t there others who are anxious to independently verify these experiments? I don’t currently have the equipment, time, etc. for building an air bearing so it may take a long while given my situation. AEP - 5 Sep 2007
I see the water and the weights as the mass and gravity as the source. Both are moved by gravity. And this fits into Bills thermal cycle, IMHO...evaporation, clouds...rain....gravity...all fall down. Gravity is the source for these two potential masses to produce work.
I had a post way earlier and this thread just went nuts! Unfortunately, I was on shift and unable to respond. Here it is again, Fletch did respond and my apologies for not being able to get back to you then....please, if any of you can just follow me on this...
Potential energy
set-up 1. A running generator, connected to a switch 5 ft. off the ground, that when activated (switch) will energize a light bulb (performs work).
set-up 2. A weight sitting on a levered/hinged shelf 5 ft. off the ground, that when activated (levered/hinged shelf), the weight drops and smashes an aluminum can (performs work).
Now...what is the medium for the PE in each scenario? In the first is it the gas that powers the generator? the voltage that waits on the one side of the switch....the combo of voltage and resistance that produces the current that when released will energize the bulb? lol....in the second is it the gravity? Is it the weight that waits to be released from the shelf.....or the combo of the weight and the distance it has to travel to the can? lol
My analogy on this situation....for each of these to do work, the PE has to be released, true? OK, now there also has to be a resultant, so to speak, to be able to measure the work being done, true? Basically, if I throw the electrical switch and the wires just go to nothing, all I have done is moved the potential....no real work was done. If I release the weight and it just keeps falling without making contact with something...all I have is a moving potential...waiting to do work. Now, what they both are looking for is a resistance.
Let's take Bills thermal example....he still needs gravity to make it work. There are two activities taking place, heat to raise the moisture...a cooling of the moisture as it rises causing it to bond into droplets that gravity can zoom in on and pull it right back down where it belongs. So, Sun pulls the weights (water) up and gravity pulls the weights (water) right back down. Resistance helps in breaking up the water into small enough molecules so the thermal aspect (Mr. sun) can raise them up as clouds....what do I mean by resistance in this scenario....when the waves crash against the jetties....when the river flows over the rocks and creates rapids...when a tornado pulls it right up through the center...resistance!
Another part of these scenarios....they all need a way to get from point A to point B....they all need a path.....and if the work is going to be specific....they need a specific path....just some stuff to chew on....
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
AldenPark wrote:We can test out this idea now using sufficiently low friction wheels, as was done circa 1968 (when I saw and heard it work)...
...Are there any volunteers who want to build an air bearing...
It's possible that what you saw in 1968 was actually a wheel driven by the compressed air of it's own air bearing: air pressure + low friction wheel = rotation. If so, then air pressure is the obvious power source driving rotation of the wheel.
Steve wrote:And this fits into Bills thermal cycle, IMHO...evaporation [Sun], clouds...rain....gravity...all fall down. Gravity is the source for these two potential masses to produce work.
'Bill's thermal cycle' is based upon heat from the Sun doing work to raise weights against the conservative force of gravity. Gravity on it's own does the opposite of lifting. The river is driven by the Sun, otherwise it will only flow for just as long as it takes its headwater to reach the ocean - IMO.
Hey Bill...one is mine the other is yours in these boxes...
'Bill's thermal cycle' is based upon heat from the Sun doing work to raise weights against the conservative force of gravity.
heat to raise the moisture
I think we are on the same page there...
Gravity on it's own does the opposite of lifting.
droplets that gravity can zoom in on and pull it right back down where it belongs.
I think "opposite of lifting" and "pulling down" can be seen as the same thing.....
The river is driven by the Sun, otherwise it will only flow for just as long as it takes its headwater to reach the ocean - IMO.
Now I am confused.....water runs downhill, right? We can install a resistance (dam) and change or redirect a proportional flow. I just so not see how the sun can be the primary source for river flow.....
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
