Hi all
I think I've never seen a simple solution like this on internet. A flywheel attached thru chain and sprockets helps to overcome the problem of fluctuation of momentum. Semicircle shape of arms ensure a smooth movement of weights.
You start this spinning the flywheel. :D
What do you think?
All the best
P.S.
I am sorry Mr Bessler I have revealed your secret, but it's about the time... ;D ;)
Vidar... would you like to come and say that this kind of wheel will never work?
Hi Rafael,
Indeed an interesting setup, and the first question from me is: if you remove the flywheel, then the rest of the setup can keep up rotation? (albeit with fluctuations) If not, then it will come to a stop with the flywheel too, after a certain time.
I like the ramp (indicated in red) which does not let the balls roll fully away from the shaft so the arm of the balls force is shortened.
Have you already managed to test partly or fully this setup?
Thanks, Gyula
Hi
Just imagining this in a horizontal view
the flywheel / rotor is connected to the bigger wheel and the outer has magnet also on same rotation ????
Quote from: gyulasun on June 13, 2013, 06:22:21 PM
Hi Rafael,
Indeed an interesting setup, and the first question from me is: if you remove the flywheel, then the rest of the setup can keep up rotation? (albeit with fluctuations) If not, then it will come to a stop with the flywheel too, after a certain time.
I like the ramp (indicated in red) which does not let the balls roll fully away from the shaft so the arm of the balls force is shortened.
Thanks, Gyula
Thank you Gyula. Answering your first question: when you remove the flywheel the setup will keep rotation if the wheel itself is heavy enough comparing to the mass of weights. And the mass of wheel is located as far from the center as possible. The separate flywheel in picture is symbolic only. We know that the wheel itself (green colored parts) can act as a flywheel. Do we need flywheel? Of course yes! As lower number of weights as higher level of fluctuation. And the fluctuation of momentum kills rotation at some point.
The shape of arms/chambers and ramp is a separate thing. There is lots of possibilities here.
The "secret" to these Bessler wheel things is to keep your eye on the ball. You see that the ball can move to the far right side of the wheel and you think that will give you the torque to keep the wheel turning.
The problem is that you are looking at the wrong thing. The only thing that you should be looking at is the vertical up-down displacement of the ball. Any horizontal left-right displacement of the ball as the wheel turns can be ignored. The reason that it can be ignored is that when the ball moves horizontally its gravitational potential energy does not change. A "gravity wheel" is supposed to be based on gaining gravitational energy, and by definition that is a function of the up/down displacement of the ball.
So, now look at the diagram and only follow the up/down displacement of the ball. You can see that as the wheel turns the upward displacement of the ball is equal to the downward displacement of the ball. Thus the "net energy gain" of the moving ball is zero and the wheel won't work.
That might be upsetting to some, but the real thing here is to try to understand that you can safely ignore the left-right movement of the ball or balls, and just look at the up-down movement. This is a leap of imagination and understanding and insight that you must take to understand why no Bessler wheels will ever work, no matter how simple or complicated and intricate the design may be.
Just look at any Bessler wheel design and follow the up-down movement of the ball or balls and ignore the left-right movement. You will notice that no matter what, the upwards displacement is equal to the downwards displacement for a net energy gain of zero.
Hi MileHigh,
I edited Rafael's drawing a little and tilted the wheel clockwise by 5° from its horizontal position to indicate mainly the balls position in that moment. (My editing is not complete because the ramp (red line) should have been also displaced to the right a little, it is not rotating with the wheel of course.)
Well, because you completely disregard the horizontal distances of the balls from the center point C, so you completely neglect the rotational torque ball B2 exerts on the whole wheel via the distance (radius of the wheel). In this respect, in this moments of the rotation of the wheel, the operation of a simple lever, a seesaw is to be considered ( http://avstop.com/ac/apgeneral/machines.html (http://avstop.com/ac/apgeneral/machines.html) ).
I agree that balls B3 and B4 should be lifted up of course and in order to get a continuos rotation, the distance and the tilting of the ramp should be very carefully chosen (if possible of course) so that the rotational torque of ball B2 should overcome any other counter torque of balls B3 and B4.
This is mainly what webby also hinted at.
Gyula
The bottom part with the ramp reminds me very much of the Sjack Abeling wheel. In analyzing that it was learned that the inward movement of the weights due to the ramp is not free. It is the motion of the wheel that pushes the weight against the ramp. The ramp then gives its required counterforce. The result is that the torque on the wheel due to B3 is larger than the value from its weight x the distance to the axle. If you draw a force diagram of the B3 properly it needs to be made with vectors that are normal to the ramp and the wheel, none of which are 90 degrees at that location.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine the wheel running CCW. Why wouldn't it be able to do that? If you try this you may see how B3 is acting like a cylindrical pin being pushed between the blades of a pair of scissor to force them open. It may make it easier to understand how the resultant forces (torques) due to B3 can be larger than just its weight x distance to the axle.
M.
Hi Mondrasek,
I understand and agree with you and at the moment, to counter the extra force you refer to as the counterforce of the ramp, I think the only hope to counter that force is to use a higher diameter wheel so that the torque effect of the weight of B2 on the shaft could be higher with its higher distance from the shaft. Also the tilting angle of the ramp obviously greatly influences its counter force to the weights. This is one reason I asked Rafael whether he has already done some tests on this setup.
rgds, Gyula
Gentlemen:
I agree that I am completely disregarding the horizontal distances. If you can envision what I am saying, it's all about looking at this rotating system from an energy perspective. The only true energy dynamics are the vertical displacement of the balls. You can ignore the rotational inertia of the big wheel and the balls themselves. What do you end up seeing? Balls that move down one unit and then must be lifted back up one unit for a net energy change of zero. In the final analysis that's all that counts. Many times in problems like this you can disregard all of the complicated dynamics and just look at the energy to find the solution to your problem. For example, a coil and a capacitor form an LC resonator. If the coil has one amp of current flowing through it what is the peak capacitor voltage? Do you have to work out the differential equations and convert the solution into a time-based or angle-based algebraic equation? The answer is no you don't have to, you just have to calculate the energy in the coil and then calculate the required capacitor voltage to give you the same energy.
So, people look at the diagram and they see how the ball B2 (thanks Gyula for the diagram) can give you more clockwise torque than the other balls. The problem is they don't look any further than that. As the wheel starts to turn the clockwise torque from B2 will decrease while there is counter-clockwise torque from B3 and B4. When does the clockwise toque from B2 drop to the point when it is less than the counter-clockwise torque from B3 and B4? What angle does that happen at? Nobody knows do they? As B4 starts to go up the red ramp you can see how it's being "pinched" between two surfaces that are trying to make it spin in opposite directions. What are the two coefficients of friction between the ball and the two surfaces? Which way does the ball turn when it goes up the red ramp? How much energy is lost as the ball goes up the red ramp?
Let's look at the problem another way. All four balls do exactly the same motion. Therefore you should be able to analyze one ball and see if it adds or decreases the rotational energy of the big wheel. If we say B2 starts at zero degrees, then we know from zero to 90 degrees B2 applies torque to the wheel. At 90 degrees the torque becomes zero. So, who can generate the function "Torque_on_Wheel = Ball_weight x Some_function_of_angle." Who can then integrate on that function from zero to 90 degrees to get the increase in big wheel energy over the first 90 degrees?
Certainly the integration from 90 degrees to 180 degrees will give you a net reduction in the rotational energy of the big wheel. Anybody want to try to generate that function? That one is a doozie because of the extra friction energy drain from going up the ramp.
That's most of the calculation, but there is still another 180 degrees to integrate on before we get the final final big wheel energy after rotating through a single revolution with a single ball on the track.
So it's apparent to me that many of you can only see the B2 ball in the start position as per Gyula's diagram and you think wow a Bessler wheel!!! Well you can't do that. You need to integrate over the full 360 degrees and generate a "Torque = some_function_of_angle" equation to do that. That is a really hard thing to do and you have to start playing with "dTheta" differentials.
We haven't even discussed the moment of inertia of the ball itself and how that would factor into everything.
So I choose to go the "smart" route and just look at the ball gravitational energy analysis. We know that is only a function of up-down and nothing else. When you talk gravitational energy, it's like the higher you go the higher the voltage. The lower you go the lower the voltage. So "up-down" is like you are in a voltage gradient.
MileHigh
thanks for sharing this idea :D
http://opensourceenergy.net/index.php?topic=9.0
Quote from: gyulasun on June 14, 2013, 12:26:06 PM
This is one reason I asked Rafael whether he has already done some tests on this setup.
No, I haven't. I'am a bit bussy in ongoing project with Rberval balance as a base. And.. I have no flywheel at the moment :)
However I'd like to thank you guys for good comments. I appreciate.
Now I wonder if semicircle shape of arms/chambers gives any advantage over straight arms... with this setup we can close the ramp to the center of wheel I think. This is illustrated in picture below. See this shape of ramp now (red color); wherever arm crosses the ramp the angle between tangent of ramp an tangent of arm is about 90'. Does it make any gain except of smooth running balls? Don't know, but it shows how we can play with shape of arm and ramp.
For testing I propose even simpler wheel with 2 weights and a ramp... and flywheel as rim..
All the best
@MileHigh
your explanations not only make sense but are brilliantly explained.
Being the simpleton I am i have relied on "A rock only falls once"
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: webby1 on June 14, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
or a 90 lever and a ramp and a curve mounted on one of the legs for the lever.
MH,
The math *is* a real doozie,, and the more complicated the interactions the worse it gets,,
I can build easier than do the math,, and in building, you sometimes find things that the math does not show,, like force over distance can be done a few strange ways :)
And when those "strange ways" are looked at correctly, the math always _does_ show what is happening. Can you provide a case that demonstrates otherwise?
The engineering disciplines of Statics and Dynamics, usually combined into "engineering mechanics", have pretty well got the issues of force and distance completely covered. May I suggest that you look up Beer and Johnston Mechanics of Materials on the internet? You will find, I think, that the math _does_ show everything of interest and significance in the mechanics of constructions made of materials that we find here on this green Earth.
Webby,
The main reason why these machines never works is because one design them using basic physics every time. Math and experiments prooves that the weights in a gravity wheel gain and loose energy according to their altitude. It does not matter if the weights are going in a circular, or any other type of manner. The potential energy that is stored in a weight does not depend on HOW it got up there. The energy that is released from a weight on its way down are not depended on HOW it goes down.
You can transport a 1 N weight from the ground to the moon and back to a table 1 meter higher than the ground. The weight has gained only 1 Joule of potential energy.
The weight that is a part of a gravity wheel will by the designs limitations ALLWAYS conserve its energy at any time.
If you want to build a working gravity machine, you must make it open looped so energy input is possible. Or make a wind mill. They works fine.
Vidar
This same basic idea of a wheel was talked about here: http://www.overunity.com/7150/sjack-abeling-gravity-wheel-and-the-worlds-first-weight-power-plant/#.Ub4n_xZ8bfc
I built several wheels and others also built test models and none of them worked.
Dusty
"You can transport a 1 N weight from the ground to the moon and back to a table 1 meter higher than the ground. The weight has gained only 1 Joule of potential energy."
And this is explanation given always by skeptics. The statement is true of course, however applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.
There are some ways to achieve it and some people succeed.. Sjack Abeling among them I believe.
@Dusty, if you have any pictures of your not working wheels would you like to post?
P.S.
By the way interesting what's going on with Sjack Abeling...
Quotehowever applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.
You are dead wrong. As I already explained, if you have one rolling ball or four rolling balls or 10 rolling balls, it doesn't make any difference. One rolling ball should give you one-quarter the "hypothetical gain" of four rolling balls. i.e.; you don't need multiple rolling balls. All of the balls follow exactly the same path and will do the same thing from an energy perspective.
You are just imagining that multiple balls will "work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis." The fantasy is that the center of mass of the multiple balls will be permanently offset from the axis and therefore permanently create torque that keeps the wheel turning. Well, before you even build a wheel you could make some drawings that show multiple balls cycling through the system as the wheel turns. For each drawing you could easily calculate the center of mass of the set of balls and see if you are on the right track about the alleged "permanent offset of the center of mass of the multiple balls causing permanent torque."
If you do your drawings well and make a serious effort to study this, there is no chance at all that you will find the alleged permanent offset and permanent resultant torque. This is just a 16th century notion that just won't go away. If it actually was true then the entire world electrical grid would be powered by giant Bessler wheels and there would be no energy supply problems.
I have a few old pictures. I have 27 videos of progress reports and tests of the old gravity wheel.
The old timers on this forum will remember all the work that went into research.
I'm trying to attach three pictures to this post, lets see if this works.
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 16, 2013, 07:33:04 PM
"You can transport a 1 N weight from the ground to the moon and back to a table 1 meter higher than the ground. The weight has gained only 1 Joule of potential energy."
And this is explanation given always by skeptics. The statement is true of course, however applicable only to one separate mass. So they want you to see weights as if they work separately. But they don't.
The multi-leverage system makes weights work together as one mass with its center offset from the axis/fulcrum.
There are some ways to achieve it and some people succeed.. Sjack Abeling among them I believe.
@Dusty, if you have any pictures of your not working wheels would you like to post?
P.S.
By the way interesting what's going on with Sjack Abeling...
No, they unfortunatly don't. Each weight carries a separate given potential energy depending on where they are. That potential energy must account for THAT particular weight. The weight will therfor never have excess potential energy to lift or doing work on other weights in the same system.
The weights will never, by the design, be able to overbalance unless all weights are fixed on the different locations and never be able to roll or change their distance from the hub. In that case the wheel will turn 90 degrees and stop there with the weight furthermost from the hub resting at the bottom.
In classical "overbalanced" designs the weights are allowed to move around. Guess why; Because the system will be forced to conserve energy.
So, what appears to be an overbalance is only true for a static view - looking at the static torque when the weights still are fixed to one position on the wheel. As soon as the wheel "starts moving" the force that each weight represent will turn into kinetic energy which automaticly will be equal on both sides of the wheel.
Look at the mid pic in the post above. Look at the ramp that pushes the weight closer to the hub. Further there is a ramp which moves the weight up to the circumference. Notice the angle of attack that the wheel must fight against. That will apply an additional countertorque. Then use cosin or sin to calculate the energy required to lift the weight closer to the hub during that partial revolution of the wheel. The result is the very same as the energy released from the weights that is furthermost from the hub which want to go down.
If you separate torque from energy, and you will understand why closed looped gravity wheels cannot produce excess energy. And if you separate sceptics from realists, you wll understand even more ;-))
Vidar
Hi Dusty
Nice work indeed... my first impression is that the curved arms do well in a bottom half of wheel, but have horrible characteristic in upper half /in conjunction with ramp/... unless Mr Sjack Abeling has invented something special to improve it.
QuoteA silly question, what happens to the force gravity is making with the weight on a wheel when it is straight up?? is that reactionary force that is created any different when the wheel is rotated 90 degrees???
The force of gravity is vertical. When the weight is on the top, there is no torque in the wheel. When the wheel is turned 90 degrees the torque is at its maximum. The average torque is 70.1% of maximum during this half revolution. The torque on the other side is appearently less because the weights are closer to the hub. What one forgets is that the angle of attack of the weights is also changed in order to move the weight closer to the hub on their way up. And gravity are still working vertically - don't forget.
The angle of attack will increase the counter torque so the sum of torque due to hub distance, and the angle of attack is the same as the torque provided by the "heavier" side.
The fact that the heavier side is actually heavier with respect to the hub than the other side, does therfor not mean that the overbalanced wheel actually is overbalancing. Because the lighter side, due to the angle of attack is providing just as much counter torque as the torque in the heavy side.
When I say the gravity works vertically, I mean it works vertically no matter how the weight is going up or down. Common sense tells us that a vertical force does not change direction just because the weight is placed on a wheel. The vertical force is as I said allways vertical, so the potential energy that is stored in a weight at any hight, no matter how it gets there, is fixed to that altitude, and not depended on other weights, or cooperation from other weights for that matter.
So how on earth is it possible to extract excess energy from an object which potential energy is stored as a function of the force of gravity and its altitude? Will a wheel change this potential?
So gravity wheels cannot work in a closed loop without energy input, because they can't, OK?
I Hope this enlighten you a bit.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on June 17, 2013, 02:38:42 PM
The angle of attack will increase the counter torque so the sum of torque due to hub distance, and the angle of attack is the same as the torque provided by the "heavier" side.
And where is your math to prove it?
Do you follow some pseudo-scientists who love to repeat sentence: "...therefore the net gain equals ZERO" even without evidence?
"so the potential energy that is stored in a weight at any hight, no matter how it gets there, is fixed to that altitude, and not depended on other weights, or cooperation from other weights for that matter." - BOLLOCKS ;D
According to You now we are not able to use a classic scale... as the potential energy of weight on one side of beam does not depend on the weight on opposite side.
Rafael:
QuoteDo you follow some pseudo-scientists who love to repeat sentence: "...therefore the net gain equals ZERO" even without evidence?
That might be your perspective. From my perspective you are the pseudo-scientist and I am the scientist.
You have to supply evidence that your Bessler wheel will work, I don't have to prove that it will not work. This "logic inversion" from over-eager enthusiasts happens all the time. The net gain does equal zero and it has been proven because the trip down is the same length as the trip up. We know the work in each direction is Mgh, nobody will dispute that. h - h = 0. That's the proof on paper. If you do the build you will end up supplying the physical evidence to back me up.
So either you prove your point with logic, which I seriously doubt you can do, or you go and do the build and see what happens and make a YouTube clip. Chances are you will be the 9,999th YouTube Bessler wheel builder with an attempt that does not work.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 17, 2013, 08:29:22 PM
The net gain does equal zero and it has been proven because the trip down is the same length as the trip up. We know the work in each direction is Mgh, nobody will dispute that. h - h = 0. That's the proof on paper.
COMPLETE BOLLOCKS ;D
From my perspective you are pseudo-scientist, because you don't even see that the trip up and the trip down of the weight are NOT the same lenhgt (!) - firstly. Secondly, regardless the presence of ramp, summary weight (also energy) of masses on ascending side is less than summary weght of masses on descending side due to precence of multi-leverage phenomenon.
Now we have statement of Vidar:
"The fact that the heavier side is actually heavier with respect to the hub than the other side, does therfor not mean that the overbalanced wheel actually is overbalancing. Because the lighter side, due to the angle of attack is providing just as much counter torque as the torque in the heavy side."
And this is not hypothesis, this is conclusion. He was first to mention equation here therefore I asked him: 'where is your math to prove it?'
Repeating something after someone without evidence is not a science.. is just a pseudo-science.
Dear MilleHigh.. am I a pseudo-scientist because I am asking for evidence? Don't think so. The difference between me and you guys is that you spread something that looks like conclusion without prove. I only suggest..
Rafael:
The "secret" is that the only displacement that counts for anything is the vertical displacement. The vertical displacement down is equal to the vertical displacement up. Therefore h - h = 0.
The burden of proof rests on your shoulders Rafael. Simple physics is telling you that it won't work and it's up to you to prove otherwise.
I have made my points so I doubt I will post anymore on this topic. If you believe that you are correct do you plan on doing a build of your device to prove it will work?
MileHigh
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 17, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
And where is your math to prove it?
Do you follow some pseudo-scientists who love to repeat sentence: "...therefore the net gain equals ZERO" even without evidence?
"so the potential energy that is stored in a weight at any hight, no matter how it gets there, is fixed to that altitude, and not depended on other weights, or cooperation from other weights for that matter." - BOLLOCKS ;D
According to You now we are not able to use a classic scale... as the potential energy of weight on one side of beam does not depend on the weight on opposite side.
Not exactly. If you place one weight on each side of the scale, with equal weight and equal distance to the tipping point, they will balance, but the potential energy that each weight carry is not depended on the other. However, if you move one weight closer, the other weight will fall down due to different torque, but that isn't what happens in an "over balanced" wheel, because you use energy from the wheel to move the weights closer to the hub.
I don't expect that you will accept this, but as you learn, you will realize. Hopefully you realize this before you waste you time and money in building a gravity wheel.
Vidar
I hope this helps.
http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk (http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk)
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on June 18, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
I hope this helps.
http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk (http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk)
M.
If it just could start playing. I don't see anything...
Edit: Still nothing. Is it fully uploaded yet, or must I log in first...I'll try that.
Edit2: It works because it lasts for 0 seconds. Could you please upload a new one?
Vidar
YouTube is still processing the video. It tells you so on the page. I have no idea how long it will take before it is viewable.
Sorry.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on June 18, 2013, 01:19:54 PM
YouTube is still processing the video. It tells you so on the page. I have no idea how long it will take before it is viewable.
Sorry.
M.
OK :-) I'll wait.
Quote from: mondrasek on June 18, 2013, 01:19:54 PM
YouTube is still processing the video. It tells you so on the page. I have no idea how long it will take before it is viewable.
Sorry.
M.
Nope, I think you got a failed upload. The page looks normal, no indication of "still processing" but when I hit Play I see 33 seconds of black screen. Usually the video is viewable within a couple of minutes after the upload is complete.
ETA: OK now it seems to be working. Thanks.....
(Or rather.... "not" working..... ;) )
Watched it now. Look at the ramp how it scissors the weight uphill. As you see, the "scissoring" provides a "gear ratio to the movement of the weight. This ratio will add countertorque which during the revolution takes energy from the wheel at the same time as the rightmost weight tries to overbalance it - but it can't. It has not excess energy to fight against the other weight on the left.
BTW: What software are you using for this simulation? Is it free?
Vidar
Quote from: mondrasek on June 18, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
I hope this helps.
http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk (http://youtu.be/LNl9doQfbyk)
M.
Thank you Mr Mondrasek for posting this video. To be honest I didn't expect such a good behavior of this setup. With this shape of ramp and its distance from the center the lower ball reaches almost 5.30 (!) That means the wheel needs rotate only additional 15 degrees to get over-unity.
Now it is at ones discretion to improve the model. It can be achieved by adding flywheel, modeling the shape of chambers and ramp ect.
Have fun ;D
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 19, 2013, 06:31:37 AM
Thank you Mr Mondrasek for posting this video. To be honest I didn't expect such a good behavior of this setup. With this shape of ramp and its distance from the center the lower ball reaches almost 5.30 (!) That means the wheel needs rotate only additional 15 degrees to get over-unity.
Now it is at ones discretion to improve the model. It can be achieved by adding flywheel, modeling the shape of chambers and ramp ect.
Have fun ;D
It is theoretically possible to make the wheel rotate 15 degrees more, but not more than that. In practice you might achieve 5 - 10 degrees more due to minimal friction.
Another thing to consider:
If this wheel really overbalanced, if there was excess energy on the right side, it should not be a problem making this work as it is already. But the conservation of energy applies to any mechanism no matter how you tune or modify it. Applying more details (Which ofcouse also conserves energy) does not help.
This kind of mechanism does not work as fuel and oxygen mixdure, saying that oxygen is that last detail neccessary to make the mixdure burn. But one cannot compare those two elements with a mechanical device like this. It took energy from the sun to make the fuel and separate oxygen from stuff (Which was basicly CO2 and H2O). That's why these elements (Hydrocarbons and oxygen) burn (Finds equilibrium) if you mix them and ignite it.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on June 19, 2013, 07:33:33 AM
If this wheel really overbalanced, if there was excess energy on the right side, it should not be a problem making this work as it is already. But the conservation of energy applies to any mechanism no matter how you tune or modify it. Applying more details (Which ofcouse also conserves energy) does not help.
Thank you doctor Vidar for your Emergency Service... good job. That brings me back to reality. ;)
QuoteThis kind of mechanism does not work as fuel and oxygen mixdure, saying that oxygen is that last detail neccessary to make the mixdure burn. But one cannot compare those two elements with a mechanical device like this. It took energy from the sun to make the fuel and separate oxygen from stuff (Which was basicly CO2 and H2O). That's why these elements (Hydrocarbons and oxygen) burn (Finds equilibrium) if you mix them and ignite it.
Vidar
Of course dear Vidar... May God bless His Majesty King of Norway! King rich in oil & gas ...
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 19, 2013, 01:24:10 PM
Thank you doctor Vidar for your Emergency Service... good job. That brings me back to reality. ;)
Any time :-)
Quote
Of course dear Vidar... May God bless His Majesty King of Norway! King rich in oil & gas ...
This just pisses me off. Must the oil companies in Norway burn in h..ll. It is nothing else than taxes, greed, and ignorance to renewable energy. This government sucks when it comes to managing tax "dollars" to the proper purpose.
I look for the holy grail just as much as you do, but I have given up the obvious impossible and looks for the possible for as long it is for free.
Vidar
Of course I believe in law of conservation energy, but sometimes I have impression that people misuse or overuse it.. or use as excuse for their lack of abilities. The problem is what is energy exactly? Is gravity itself an energy? We usually say that gravity is homogenous field or force, but one can say that the wind is also. There is too much analogy between wind and gravity as for me.. too much to simply give up gravity.
The absence of something on the stage is not a prove that it doesn't exist... somewhere.
All the best.
Quote from: Rafael Ti on June 20, 2013, 05:36:45 AM
Of course I believe in law of conservation energy, but sometimes I have impression that people misuse or overuse it.. or use as excuse for their lack of abilities. The problem is what is energy exactly? Is gravity itself an energy? We usually say that gravity is homogenous field or force, but one can say that the wind is also. There is too much analogy between wind and gravity as for me.. too much to simply give up gravity.
The absence of something on the stage is not a prove that it doesn't exist... somewhere.
All the best.
I can agree with you to a certain point. However I believe you cannot compare wind with a gravitational force. Because the wind is mass in motion (energy) while gravity is only a static force.
Vidar
Hi All
In the Bhaskara "cage"... the neverending (?) story. It can be seen why some of this type designs can't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbCnzsFjvQU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbCnzsFjvQU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ht-rqO2mc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ht-rqO2mc)