The only problem though is Leibniz fell out of favor and actually was disgraced because it was felt he perpretrated fraud. He was accused of stealing from Newton and whether this is true or not is didn't help when he was found to have doctored up some of his record keeping. He is considered a genius though, definately.BAR wrote: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.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. :)"
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. ;)
Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Moderator: scott
Re: re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Grimer you've been on the Steorn forum before haven't you?
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
I remembered reading your finger stress account about 3-3 1/2 years ago on there.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
You've had plenty of time to think about it then. 
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
If you use motion to produce heat and sound you have to use up the motion.
A few times I have turned off the air supply to the frictionless plane (air table) before the puck has stopped moving, As the air cushion subsides the puck makes a distinct dragging sound before it comes to a stop. The motion of the puck is turned into heat and sound, but the motion is removed, it is used up, it is consumed, it is gone.
The aluminum wheel that I am now experimenting with has two bearings, one on each side of the wheel. The bearings must not be perfectly aliened because they make a slight rolling clicking sound in a portion of the rotation. It only costs .004905 newtons to rotated the wheel (to overcome the resistance in the bearings) so I have done nothing about this sound. But I know that this sound costs motion, you can’t make something for nothing you know. The wheel is losing motion as the bearings are making this sound, the motion is used up, it is gone.
How is it that enough heat and sound is produced to use up almost all of the gravitational potential energy but the heat and sound production uses up almost none of the motion? Any other time heat and sound will cost you motion.
The bearings in the wheel are very good, only a tiny portion of the motion is used up as heat and sound. Couldn’t you make the bullet and block out of hardened steel and couldn’t you oil the touching surfaces? Wouldn’t that cause some change in the quantity of friction that produces the heat? Engineers control friction wherever else they want to, but they have no control of a ballistics pendulum.
You could slow the bullet down to a crawl and you would still get the same percent frictional heat loss. I thought speed affected frictional heat loss.
We could load up the bullet and block with thermal couples and measure the heat, yet no one has ever found the heat, its internal, its mysterious, its not measureable, its not there.
If you are going to make energy from a gravity wheel you are going to have to violate the Laws of Conservation of Energy, yet many of you are aghast at the suggestion of destroying energy. The word ‘create’ should bristle your feathers just as much, and probably does. If you are going to be successful at building machines you will have to open your mind to the possibility that The Law of Conservation of Energy might be a false concept. I am presenting good reasons for you to believe that it might be false.
How can you take two Laws or formulas side by side, that use the same variables, in the same experiment; one of these laws is conserved and the other loses 99.6%, and the experimenter says both laws are conserved??? This is what should cause you to be aghast.
The word ‘destroyed’ is almost a militant word chosen by the writers of the Law not by me, ‘lost’ or ‘not maintained’ seems more appropriate to the world of physics. Regardless of the word you use: if you can do it the Law of Conservation of Energy is false. This is also true of the word ‘create’ or ‘make’: if you can do it the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
I have machines that make energy; therefore I believe that The Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
A few times I have turned off the air supply to the frictionless plane (air table) before the puck has stopped moving, As the air cushion subsides the puck makes a distinct dragging sound before it comes to a stop. The motion of the puck is turned into heat and sound, but the motion is removed, it is used up, it is consumed, it is gone.
The aluminum wheel that I am now experimenting with has two bearings, one on each side of the wheel. The bearings must not be perfectly aliened because they make a slight rolling clicking sound in a portion of the rotation. It only costs .004905 newtons to rotated the wheel (to overcome the resistance in the bearings) so I have done nothing about this sound. But I know that this sound costs motion, you can’t make something for nothing you know. The wheel is losing motion as the bearings are making this sound, the motion is used up, it is gone.
How is it that enough heat and sound is produced to use up almost all of the gravitational potential energy but the heat and sound production uses up almost none of the motion? Any other time heat and sound will cost you motion.
The bearings in the wheel are very good, only a tiny portion of the motion is used up as heat and sound. Couldn’t you make the bullet and block out of hardened steel and couldn’t you oil the touching surfaces? Wouldn’t that cause some change in the quantity of friction that produces the heat? Engineers control friction wherever else they want to, but they have no control of a ballistics pendulum.
You could slow the bullet down to a crawl and you would still get the same percent frictional heat loss. I thought speed affected frictional heat loss.
We could load up the bullet and block with thermal couples and measure the heat, yet no one has ever found the heat, its internal, its mysterious, its not measureable, its not there.
If you are going to make energy from a gravity wheel you are going to have to violate the Laws of Conservation of Energy, yet many of you are aghast at the suggestion of destroying energy. The word ‘create’ should bristle your feathers just as much, and probably does. If you are going to be successful at building machines you will have to open your mind to the possibility that The Law of Conservation of Energy might be a false concept. I am presenting good reasons for you to believe that it might be false.
How can you take two Laws or formulas side by side, that use the same variables, in the same experiment; one of these laws is conserved and the other loses 99.6%, and the experimenter says both laws are conserved??? This is what should cause you to be aghast.
The word ‘destroyed’ is almost a militant word chosen by the writers of the Law not by me, ‘lost’ or ‘not maintained’ seems more appropriate to the world of physics. Regardless of the word you use: if you can do it the Law of Conservation of Energy is false. This is also true of the word ‘create’ or ‘make’: if you can do it the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
I have machines that make energy; therefore I believe that The Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
And to give something extra/higher momentum you need to give it impetus/force/energy to give it a higher velocity > to give something greater momentum you have to overcome its inertia [a drag or resistance to an enforced change in its state of motion] > to speed an object up [or slow it down] you must apply energy [the capacity to do work] in the form of a force [mxa] > we know how much energy is needed by calculating the objects new Ke after it stops accelerating or decelerating & doing some math for before & after scenario's.greendoor wrote: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. fletcher - that appears logical !
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. fletcher - an excellent way to test the theory no doubt !
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.
N.B. force x distance is work done => work done x time is power or rate of work done.
sGravesande proved this by using mass dropped into clay experiments & found it to be a Ke = mv^2 relationship - this was later changed to 1/2mv^2 on closer more accurate testing by others - until then even earlier people had thought it was mv [momentum] but this didn't experimentally tally because the energy requirement was not linear but a squared function of velocity.
So whilst momentum is useful for telling the state of inertia [& from that we can calculate how much energy is required to slow the system to a stop, relative to the earth, or how much it has right then, or to speed it up to a new velocity, before another force acts on it] it is not a measure of capacity to do work - Kinetic Energy is, as experimentally proven.
Re: re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Just rememberd it, that's all. You were having the conversation with someone else.Grimer wrote:You've had plenty of time to think about it then.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Fletcher: Sometimes I like to simplify it to this. If I apply one unit of force (newton) to one unit of mass (kilogram) for one unit of time (second) I will get one unit of motion. To return this object to rest I must apply one unit of force (in the opposite direction to travel) for one unit of time.
Now suppose the object by some natural means gives all of it motion to half of itself, I will still have to apply one unit of force for one unit of time to return the object to rest.
Suppose the object by some natural means gives all of it motion to one fourth of itself, I will still have to apply one unit of force for one unit of time to return the object to rest. Force and time being fundamental concepts.
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one kilogram is .5 meters. d = 1/2at² or d = ½ v²/a
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one half kilogram is 1 meters.
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one fourth kilogram is 2 meters.
Kinetic energy is force times distance, so the 1 kg needed .5 units of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
The 1/2 kg needed 1 unit of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
The 1/4 kg needed 2 units of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
So a fundamental quantity of force acting for a fundamental quantity of time can give you an infinity number of kinetic energies. It does not appear to me that kinetic energy is a fundamental quantity (conserved).
So we proved experimentally that kinetic energy is not conserved and now we have proven mathematically that it is not conserved. But there is no room here for kinetic energy’s imaginary friends like heat and sound. If kinetic energy is not conserved then energy itself is not conserved, because here energy can take no other imaginary forms. Is it possible that even earlier people “- until then even earlier people had thought it was mv [momentum]� were right.
Now suppose the object by some natural means gives all of it motion to half of itself, I will still have to apply one unit of force for one unit of time to return the object to rest.
Suppose the object by some natural means gives all of it motion to one fourth of itself, I will still have to apply one unit of force for one unit of time to return the object to rest. Force and time being fundamental concepts.
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one kilogram is .5 meters. d = 1/2at² or d = ½ v²/a
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one half kilogram is 1 meters.
The distance traveled during the application of force for the one fourth kilogram is 2 meters.
Kinetic energy is force times distance, so the 1 kg needed .5 units of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
The 1/2 kg needed 1 unit of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
The 1/4 kg needed 2 units of kinetic energy to be brought to rest.
So a fundamental quantity of force acting for a fundamental quantity of time can give you an infinity number of kinetic energies. It does not appear to me that kinetic energy is a fundamental quantity (conserved).
So we proved experimentally that kinetic energy is not conserved and now we have proven mathematically that it is not conserved. But there is no room here for kinetic energy’s imaginary friends like heat and sound. If kinetic energy is not conserved then energy itself is not conserved, because here energy can take no other imaginary forms. Is it possible that even earlier people “- until then even earlier people had thought it was mv [momentum]� were right.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
I'm feeling tired pequaide & probably so are you ;)
Sounds like you're suggesting a sort of integration analysis method - kinetic energy isn't conserved as you point out but Total Energy is, IINM.
If you can experimentally show that the "even earlier people had thought it was mv [momentum]� i.e. mv was the capacity to do work, then leap to it friend & step up :) - why not start with dropping weights from a known height into clay [start easy] - at least that way gravity is 100% efficient [allowing for some air resistance] - then do the math on penetration depth achieved using mv as see if its not linear - in fact if you plot mv against predicted non-linear 1/2mv^2 the lines should intersect so somewhere above or below that point we might have to use the other formula - now that would make science sit up & take notice - wadiya think ?
Sounds like you're suggesting a sort of integration analysis method - kinetic energy isn't conserved as you point out but Total Energy is, IINM.
If you can experimentally show that the "even earlier people had thought it was mv [momentum]� i.e. mv was the capacity to do work, then leap to it friend & step up :) - why not start with dropping weights from a known height into clay [start easy] - at least that way gravity is 100% efficient [allowing for some air resistance] - then do the math on penetration depth achieved using mv as see if its not linear - in fact if you plot mv against predicted non-linear 1/2mv^2 the lines should intersect so somewhere above or below that point we might have to use the other formula - now that would make science sit up & take notice - wadiya think ?
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
No Broli, from what I have discovered there are no new physics principles necessary. Conventional classical physics works without violation in a self regenerative gravity engine, it is only knowing how to apply those principles. Gravitation is the one doing all the violating. The funny thing is I just came across Besslers MT drawings not long ago after I developed my design and from what I have seen Bessler had the necessary principles in some of his MT drawings. Infact there are 3 of them if incorporated together similar to a puzzle in the proper method will allow anyone to understand how such a device is possible. Individually the drawings are incomplete. Now please do not ask which ones, that would be cheating. :)BAR are you saying Bessler managed to tap the quantum momentum properties of an atom?
Well Leibniz was simply far too brilliant to be decieved by a magic act and to this day I would like to see any modern magician repeat the wheel locked in the room trick.The only problem though is Leibniz fell out of favor and actually was disgraced because it was felt he perpretrated fraud. He was accused of stealing from Newton and whether this is true or not is didn't help when he was found to have doctored up some of his record keeping. He is considered a genius though, definately..
Ok I keep seeing this conservation nonsense. Pequaide trying to measure conservation losses in any mass and energy interactions in closed systems has been "done to death" so to speak. None has ever been found. The only chance of any violation is through gravitation. A good start is where does all the earth's heat come from? Scientists claim it is from radioactive materials but that is simply too critical. Too much and an uncontrolled reaction blows up the planet, smaller explosions or slower reactions would have the heat dissipated long ago. There are radioactive by products measured from volcanos as if a natural nuclear reactor was in the earth, but there are still too many unknowns. I believe gravitational pressure and the moon's tidal forces drives the heat in the earth. That is what I am talking about for example, some proof where gravitation becomes more than super conservative to study.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
I have made energy with a disk and pucks on a frictionless plane. I have made energy with a cylinder and two spheres floating in freefall. I have made energy with a wheel with a tethered mass attached.
So I think your “None has ever been found.� is a false statement.
Actually I don’t work with energy conservation laws, I am working with the Law of Conservation of Momentum (linear Newtonian). Disproving the Law of Conservation of Energy is a natural consequence of applying the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
So I think your “None has ever been found.� is a false statement.
Actually I don’t work with energy conservation laws, I am working with the Law of Conservation of Momentum (linear Newtonian). Disproving the Law of Conservation of Energy is a natural consequence of applying the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Ok turn off the hockey table then where is this extra energy? In all your measurements, if you measure all the energy from all the sources in a controlled and contained way, your net is the same. No extra energy will be found. Now if by chance you are getting extra heat, then you may have picked up something radioactive from the scrap yard. ;)
Re: re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Just cut to the chase and share what you think. We would progress much faster than playing these games.BAR wrote:No Broli, from what I have discovered there are no new physics principles necessary. Conventional classical physics works without violation in a self regenerative gravity engine, it is only knowing how to apply those principles. Gravitation is the one doing all the violating. The funny thing is I just came across Besslers MT drawings not long ago after I developed my design and from what I have seen Bessler had the necessary principles in some of his MT drawings. Infact there are 3 of them if incorporated together similar to a puzzle in the proper method will allow anyone to understand how such a device is possible. Individually the drawings are incomplete. Now please do not ask which ones, that would be cheating. :)BAR are you saying Bessler managed to tap the quantum momentum properties of an atom?
Pequaide check your pm already.pequaide wrote:I have made energy with a disk and pucks on a frictionless plane. I have made energy with a cylinder and two spheres floating in freefall. I have made energy with a wheel with a tethered mass attached.
So I think your “None has ever been found.� is a false statement.
Actually I don’t work with energy conservation laws, I am working with the Law of Conservation of Momentum (linear Newtonian). Disproving the Law of Conservation of Energy is a natural consequence of applying the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?
Heh, easy for YOU to say. I devoted over HALF of my life to physics and understanding the mysteries of the universe. Were we born any different? You had no access to knowledge? I was born middle class and am still there. I am far from wealth. Science really does not pay unless your are fortunate. So instead of getting pissed at me why not learn the physics of reality and research and find your own conclusions? I feel I am not that special and yet to me in my opinion what Besslers wheel should be is completely understandable in it's function. Sure it is entirely possible I am wrong, but I would take a more sure bet on winning the lottery. ;) When I first came here only a few days ago I WAS ready to spill my guts so to speak. See in my "old" world of physics getting a new idea or process out there in public is the norm. Only the credit matters, and if luck prevails the Nobel prize. But from what I have seen and I am very gracious of AB Hammer, saying basically that open source is no different than volunteering for the soup kitchen. Sure it feels good to help but it does not pay the bills at the end of the day. So yes I would BE glad to help, but if I can not pay these absurd property taxes or utility bills etc, then it is hard to have an incentive to give any of my future prosperity away. Especially since I see millionares getting bailouts on wall street and the banks.Just cut to the chase and share what you think. We would progress much faster than playing these games.