Posted by Georg Künstler (217.2.166.71) on October 31, 2003 at 03:01:45:
In Reply to: Bessler wheel theory part 6 posted by Patrick Doucette on October 30, 2003 at 22:29:28:
: Skeptics frequently reference Newton's laws when dismissing the possibility of a gravity driven wheel. It would seem worthwhile to examine or at least be aware of a foundational framework/construct that allows for the possibility of a gravity driven device such as the following notes attempt.
: Since Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) lived just a little before Bessler (1680-1745), we could presume that Bessler was familiar or at least aware of his studies on planetary motion.
: Kepler discovered that planetary orbits follow the path of an ellipse; they are not circular (although some planets are almost circular). Kepler described planetary motion according to his three laws as follows:
:
: Kepler's laws apply not just to planets orbiting the Sun, the moon and satellites orbiting the earth, but to all cases in which one body orbits another under the influence of gravitation; they also apply with respect to the motion of objects on the surface of the earth.
: Take special note of this statement: "Kepler's laws apply to all cases in which one body orbits another under the influence of GRAVITATION."
: Take a look at the following diagram while imagining that the dark sphere is following a clockwise rotation along a path depicted by the thin circular line:
:
: With circular motion, the forces are balanced; it is directed directly towards or away from the centre (axis.) We are reminded of the definition of work. Work is defined as force multiplied by displacement/movement multiplied by the cosine of the angle of displacement.
: W = F x D x cosine of the angle of displacement.
: In the above instance, the angle of displacement is 90 degrees. Since the cosine of 90 degrees is zero, by definition, no work is being done with respect to the object. (If this sounds confusing, dig out your old high school Physics book for a refresher on the definition of Work.)
: At this point we may want to recall Simaneks' statement: "In order to keep a moving wheel unbalanced, some outside agent must do work on the wheel."
: Thus in a strictly circular motion/wheel environment we have no overt internal 'source' or at the very least, we will be hard pressed to find a source to satisfy this 'condition'.
: Now please note, I do not hold Simanek's statement as written in stone but I fully understand the reasoning behind it and that is why I feel it must somehow be addressed. I am actually attempting to address Newtons/Keplers laws and Simanek just happens to be a good 'spokesman' for the application of those 'laws' in dealing with the everyday objects/machines we see around us today.
: But now let's move forward to our next diagram:
: 
: Here we have an object following an elliptical path. In this instance, some force is being directed towards its' trajectory and some force is being directed away from its trajectory. Since some of the force in question is not directed at 90 degrees from the axis; this force is capable of effecting/affecting work upon the object. This conclusion is consistent with
: our definition of work and both Newtons & Keplers laws. We see the evidence of this work when the object speeds up or slows down in relation to its distance from the object/foci it is orbiting. (For example a planet speeds up as it approaches near to the sun and slows down as it moves away from it.
: We now have our 'source'. Sceptics will go on to argue that the force must be 'used up' to alter the speed of the object or that the force must be 'conserved' in a closed loop; but what if; yes, what if, we were to a
for more efficient object/weight manipulation within the entire system; a concept that deserves in-depth experimentation.
:
: I guess we are still a long way from arguing that we have Kepler's laws working for us but maybe we are finding a toehold. No doubt arguments can be made at length but just one simple verified experiment could silence many pages of perfect refutations from the sceptics.
: Let's also mention that planetary motion/orbits exhibit inconsequential decay with respect to a relevant human oriented time scale/frame. (For example the orbit of the moon is virtually constant with respect to recorded human history, while of course astronomers will measure it as having variance/projected variance/decay.) Let's just say that we are
: NOT trying to do anything that is 'perpetual'... there's that bad word! What we are trying to build is a wheel that has the same staying power of the moons' orbit around the earth, is that too much to ask? Okay, maybe not quite THAT much staying power.
: We are trying to build something in effect that is gravity driven. I know, I know, there is no friction in space, let's leave that for now.
: If we decide to implement weights/objects that follow elliptical paths, maybe we must maintain the centre of gravity as one of the foci. (The sun is the focus {one of the foci} of the paths of the planets etc.)
: So does that mean the centre of the earth must be one of the foci for our elliptical-path objects? If so, we are no further ahead. Our object will only be able to move straight up and down towards the centre of the earth, that doesn't make any sense. Well, maybe we can make the axle as the centre of our elliptical path? But the axle does not have any gravity to make things work; we are still back at square one.
: Enter the humble spring. A spring can be our 'simulated' replacement for gravity; attached to our object which is travelling in an elliptical path, following Kepler's laws and generating forces that effect work upon the object. Full stop. We have forces that are effecting work.
: If we incorporate elliptical motion within our wheel, can some of the forces generated be directed/transferred towards rotational movement?
: We can understand that the basic gravitational force is a conservative force similar to the force within the spring but there is an enigma with an elliptical motion that cannot easily be dismissed. The forces displayed in an elliptically (or irregular) moving object are translated into acceleration and deceleration but the complete dynamics of what happens when it strikes an object perhaps have not been fully examined. Certainly this 'collision' could have dramatic/unexpected results even within a 'closed' system. Remember, Strutt's radium device produced unexpected results, the Atmos temperature sensing clock produces unexpected results and the incandescent light bulb produced unexpected results when first displayed to the public. All of these produce an interesting 'reaction' and all of these obey the laws of physics, Newton & Kepler included. At this stage maybe we are simply looking for an interesting 'reaction' within the wheel.
: I propose that by incorporating elliptical or non-circular movement within a Besslerian/Orfyrrean wheel design we are opening the door to an 'internal' source of force that has the potential to be translated into rotational movement in such a way as to overcome friction as evidenced by Besslers' own experiments and his public demonstrations. Although we would expect long-term rotational decay due to heat and friction, there is a possibility that our results, if properly implemented, will produce sustained rotational movement that appears ongoing/self-sustaining within a meaningful/significant human time frame/perspective.
: Best regards - Patrick Doucette
Hi Patrick,
you do a very good job and you are comming closer to the solution.
You see that an external force is necessary and the circle must be deformed.
When you have a look to my COG-Page, I did exactly what you now expect.
The mass