Impact is the Key

[Michael]

1. Gravity is not energy John. It is a force.
2. Any use of energy or force means that energy or force is a part of said system. You cannot point your finger and say, not part of the system when it is in fact being used by that system.
3. Your the one John who wants to change the popular conception of a gravity wheel so it becomes accepted by the scientific crowd. Science already knows what a continuess gravity wheel would be, a perpetual motion machine. It is not my argument alone, and I'm not trying to convince everyone, as you put it. But the only thing that will ever convice the scientific crowd of anything is an actual working machine. A changing of labels is meaningless.
4. I'm only adamant to the truth.
5. Let's be simple, okay? John if you can provide one physicist ( with sources )who is willing to come on here and present a logical argument that a continuess gravity wheel isn't a perpetual motion machine then I'd be more than willing to listen. Of course I reserve the right to do the same.
6. I have nothing invested in the label, I have nothing to protect, and so it is not an emotional issue for me.
7. Except, that if I did create a perpetual motion machine ( however it is done ) I'd be proud that it would carry that label.

Now, when I wrote to you about this it was only in trying to be a friend to you. If you are somehow confusing the issue and/or are implying I have a hidden agenda and you want my reasons for writting you to be made public just say.



( picture from wikipedia )

[John Collins]

Hi Michael, no I didn't mean to imply anything - just asking the question. Upon consideration my question looks a little agressively worded, so apologies for that.

Yes gravity is a force and I am suggesting that we are tapping that force by means of weights which respond to that force. It seems obvious to me that because, in the outer reaches of space where gravity is absent, the gravity wheel cannot work, it is, under those circumstances, isolated from the energy (or rather force as you prefer to call it) that enables it to rotate.

Regardless of your conviction that gravity is not external to a perpetual motion machine, they are still defined as isolated mechanisms with no access to that force or energy which permeates everything. As such they are impossible; they cannot run without access to some kind of energy, so even though you maintain that gravity wheels are perpetual motion machines your 'science crowd' don't accept the viability of such devices.

However I have to agree with you that the only way they (the science crowd) will ever be convinced that gravity wheels are possible is with a working model and whatever you or I wish to call it, that fact is indisputable.

One more thing; even though I have maintained all along that Bessler's wheel was not a perpetual motion machine as defined in various sources, I am absolutely certain that, when someone does produce a working model, as they surely will, the media will call it a perpetual motion machine whatever I say, so in a way you are right after all!

JC

[Jim Williams]

P.P.S.: Here is the European Patent Office version of the patent I posted Sat 5-16 at 6:16pm. USPTO uses TIFF, while EPO uses Adobe, which most people have. I think it's a good patent to view.

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDeta ... cale=en_EP

[Michael]

John when you read a closed system and not connected to an external source of energy, what that means is the system has to be fully defined, and not tapping energy in some unknown way so that it looks like a perpetual motion machine, but isn't. Gravity for a gravity wheel is a part of the closed system. The interpretation you provided is also only one of three, this is that quote from answers.com;

The expression perpetual motion, or perpetuum mobile, arose historically in connection with the quest for a mechanism which, once set in motion, would continue to do useful work without an external source of energy or which would produce more energy than it absorbed in a cycle of operation. This type of motion, now called perpetual motion of the first kind, involves only one of the three distinct concepts presently associated with the idea of perpetual motion.

Perpetual motion of the first kind refers to a mechanism whose efficiency exceeds 100%. Clearly such a mechanism violates the now firmly established principle of conservation of energy, in particular that statement of the principle of conservation of energy embodied in the first law of thermodynamics. (Indeed, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as “A perpetuum mobile of the first kind cannot exist.�). See also Conservation of energy.

B.T.W. John, regarding your current blog entry. I think that is a pretty interesting bet to make. What's 100 pounds? Is it legal? If so let me know and I would certainly make that bet. Might have to do it through you, I don't know.

[John Collins]

Sorry I should have written £100, Michael. That's about $150.

I accept your explanations for now but I may take issue with you over some of what you have written later.

JC

[primemignonite]

This perpetual argument as to whether it is, or it isn't, is one sheerly pointless.

Lacking a declaration as could be done after-the-fact by The Royal Society itself, or, by a decision made here by our own United States Supreme Court, this issue will never come to it's proper rest.

It is a horse beaten mercilessly to death that will never die!

FIRST, before this thread-bare, vexing question can even be considered logically, THE THING ITSELF (along with it's true, authentic modus operandi) will have to become tangible reality.

It is not yet that nor anything near, but rather, one only imagined.

And also, this . . .

John Collins allows to us that "However I have to agree with you that the only way they (the science crowd) will ever be convinced that gravity wheels are possible is with a working model and whatever you or I wish to call it, that fact is indisputable."

Fair enough, but might we also be able to imagine the "science crowd" reversing the matter, and giving-forth some jewel such as this?

"However, we have to agree that the only way they (the "free energy" crowd) will ever be convinced that gravity wheels are impossible, is with a non-working model, and whatever we might wish to call it, it is a a thing impossible of accomplishment, for a negative may not ever be proved. Their search shall surely prove one fruitless, and perpetually."

This is the issue as seen through their eyes - the "science crowd" - as I imagine it to be.

(Just thought I'd throw this last in for some rascally fun, assuming a sort of devil's advocate mode?)

James

[ovyyus]

John, central to the proposal that Bessler's wheel was powered by gravity is the belief that gravity is an energy source. The belief that gravity is an energy source is founded upon the observation that an object that falls can do work. Falling objects can do work and gravity is the cause of falling. But what is the cause of lifting?

I would definitely take your bet John, but I wouldn't expect you to give me £100 at the end of the stipulated period :)

[Michael]

They really aren't my explanations John, but I agree with them. They make logical sense.

I wasn't asking what 100 pounds was in the vein that I didn't know, I only meant it really isn't that much money. I also meant was the betting scheme you were refering to legal?

[John Collins]

Michael, betting in England is legal and has been for at least 200 years. Of course not all gambling has been legal here but this kind of wager is quite traditional.

James, I think that they (the science crowd) think that they have already proved the negative.

Bill, what is the cause of lifting? I don't know, why do you ask? I only need to know that gravity provides an energy source through the fall of an object and I know how the weight is lifted in a gravity wheel - and that is all I need to know.

I couldn't take your money off you Bill, I have too much respect mate :)

JC

[Michael]

John, heres the question of the day. Saying you know how a weight is used can you not see how the same or near similar setup can be used in a situation using something other than gravity?

[ovyyus]

I couldn't take your money off you Bill, I have too much respect mate :)

John, I can't think of a better bet to lose! I could always donate your winnings to charity if that helps? That's assuming there's any chance I might lose :D

[greendoor]

Falling objects can do work and gravity is the cause of falling. But what is the cause of lifting?

Fair question - but I would suggest that an even deeper question is "what is holding the object up?"

Any mass in Earths g-field is experiencing a force. That force could potentionally accelerate that mass to thousands of metres per second; phenonmenal velocity & energy IF it is given the distance to do so. If that object is NOT accelerating (note: not just moving with velocity, but actually Accelerating) - then that force is diverted into straining something. The force of gravity does not 'switch off' when not required - it is constantly there.

So what is stopping all objects in Earth's G-field from burrowing their way to the earths core (or wherever the g-force is emanating from)?

Did you see the Mythbusters episode where they tested the theory that a truck full of birds weighs less if the birds are flying in the air inside the truck? One of their better ones. The truth is that even if the birds are in the air - their full weight is still pressing down on the truck. The force of air pressure under their wings is the Force/Strain holding them up in that case.

(I think Frank Grimer is so correct with his Force = Strain theory).

In the case of any elevated mass in Earth's g-field, there is some impressive Strain going on to hold that mass up there. This would be evidenced if it disappeared, allowing unrestrained downwards Acceleration.

I full accept that it takes Work to elevate a mass. But this Potential Energy thing is a bit of a deception if you ask me. I agree it's a useful theoretical calculation if you are going to do what most people do, and simply allow the mass to free fall. There is no doubt that that is the way to aquire maximum velocity.

But Potential Energy is not real energy. That object is not under significant Strain. There is nothing stored in that object. The structure underneath it holding it up is experiencing all the Strain - considerable strain if you traced it down to the Earths core. But we don't say that the structure has PE ... So what is PE? Apparantly just a calculation on paper - some 'Book Keeping'. Which may be useful - or it may be outright misleading and deceptive IF we are looking for Bessler's secret ...

But in response to your question "what is the cause of lifting?" - I would say that is irrelevant. Who cares how it got there - there are many ways. I think what you are really trying to ask is "can we use the energy acquired by a mass accelerating downwards under gravity to lift an equal or greater amount of mass back up to the same height?".

Or if you aren't asking that question - that's the question that you should be asking.

And I believe the correct answer is Yes.

[greendoor]

1. Gravity is not energy John. It is a force.
2. Any use of energy or force means that energy or force is a part of said system. You cannot point your finger and say, not part of the system when it is in fact being used by that system.

Michael - I don't believe any good physicist would argue that a gravity powered wheel is a closed system. In reality there are no closed systems. They are a theoretical mind game for the sake of trying to simplify and understand our universe.

As a point of semantics, I would have to agree that the term Perpetual Motion would include gravity wheel attempts as a matter of historical record.

This is why it's probably smarter to talk about COP rather than efficiency, or those vulgar words (PM).

[John Collins]

Yes Michael, I can.

Lets just keep it simple Bill. I bet you a gravitywheel will be demonstrated within twelve months of today. No money involved, just a friendly wager.

JC

[ovyyus]

John, a gravity powered wheel in 12 months? OK then.