Hello All;
What makes perpetual wheel attempts not work?
We see allot of opinions, and design. They seem like they are in the correct direction, but do not work. There is talk about friction and the keel effect that looks pretty much what has to be overcome in any falling weight design. Any opinions out there, on what to do to overcome these frictions and keel effects?
Hi Greyone!
What it means "correct direction"?
In my opinion,if a gravity powered device is possible,this must have a "free"(...still !) place between a family of power collectors.
A power collector needs no more then three components, as a prime line description/concept: a flux/flow,a fix/fulcrum and a form/shape.
If you have in mind any image that you can remember about a water(wind) flow power collector,you can't count more...
The flux/flow you can see as falling bodies.
The fix/fulcrum is the ground,you are walking on.
The form/shape...this the only problem.
In a family,as you know,there are some resemblances...
For a painter,and more for a designer the most important is the "first line(s)":if you have it,the next steps can be on the "correct direction".
So,if we have a "skeletal image",we have some chances to discover the "new shape".
Now,if you take a look at www.geocities.com/iacob_alex then click on "Some_Drafts"/text012.jpg with the title "Flip Flop Windmill",you can see a simple design,intended to work in a wind flow,due to arm difference,only(not to surface difference,as usually).
The initial conditions (masses/surfaces and arms) are in a such way that the same design,to "cover" the possibility to be used as a gravity power collector,also.
Sure,this is an attempt,a thinking exercise about a mystery problem,which cannot be explained or understood at once, but easy,step by step.
All the Bests! / Alex
centrifugal force. when you torque from the center, spin fast enough,Centrifugal force balances the equation, and no net gain, ever.
cameron
Greetings grayone
Well I will fix up some visual aid examples for a later post, but for now I will try to put the basics in words. In all wheels with moving parts for each action you get an equal and opposite reaction or effect in a wheel. This means for each movement you will create a search for equilibrium and finding it. Normally by a gathering of weight on or bellow the 9 to 3 o'clock line due to falling weights. This I call the keel factor, but it is still an equilibrium due to gravity itself. To get a running device (at least in a gravity based wheel) you will have to be able to eliminate the finding of equilibrium, and to do this you have to find a way to lift weights against the effect of gravity to reset for the next action. This is the reason it is a hard game to play and science declares it impossible. I guess allot of us just don't believe in impossibilities so we keep trying.
Good luck on your build.
iacob alex; I have looked at your pages before, and have found them interesting. You have allot of pendulum devices. I don't fully understand what you said, but I do think I have a good idea.
AB Hammer; I look forward to your visual aid examples. thank you
Grayone,
AB is covering the practical, so here is some simplified theory.
Gravity is an acceleration field (NOT a Force). It is also highly uniform, meaning it is always in the same direction and magnitude, within a reasonable space. This acceleration field acts upon mass to create a Force since Force = mass x acceleration (F = ma). If you take any mass at a location close to the Earth's surface, the acceleration of gravity combines with it to produce a force. This force will drive the object towards the center of the Earth's mass. So objects fall if dropped or push down on whatever surface that supports them. If we move that object to the left, right, up, or down, it experiences the same Force due to the acceleration of gravity. (The last statement is only true for relatively small distances. Moving away from the surface of the Earth to say the orbit of the moon does decrease the apparent acceleration due to gravity. Also, moving left until you are on the other side of the Earth will give you a force in the opposite direction, but still towards the center of the Earth. But for the purposes of building a gravity wheel of normal scale, the acceleration field is uniform in strength and direction.)
The simplest way to extract energy from the force of gravity acting on a mass is to allow the mass to accelerate towards the Earth. That motion can do work, like lift another object through a pulley. Or generate electricity by spinning a wheel. But in each and every case the falling mass can generate only a specific amount of energy while falling, ie. turning with the wheel from the top of the wheel to the bottom. That amount of energy is known as the Potential Energy and is directly related to the magnitude of the mass and the distance of the drop from top to bottom. And that amount of energy that can be gained due to the acceleration of gravity is the same whether the mass falls straight down, turns on the path of a wheel, or takes any other path. But once it has fallen, the mass has no potential energy. The only way to get more energy out of it is to raise it back to the top of the wheel. And raising it takes exactly the same amount of energy as it generated when falling the first time. Again, the path (straight, circular, or any other) makes no difference.
A wheel with equal mass on both sides will not spin because the force on both sides is equal. This generates zero Torque. Torque = Force x distance (from center of the wheel to the center of every mass, horizontally only). You add torques from all mass on a wheel to see if you have any left over by assigning a + or - sign to clockwise and counterclockwise. So if we say clockwise is +, we add all the torques due to mass that want to make the wheel spin clockwise, and then subtract all the torques due to mass that make the wheel want to spin counterclockwise. If a wheel does not spinning (and has no holding brake), the torque on it is zero.
So to get a gravity wheel to spin we need to have a total Torque due to mass that is not zero: one side must always have more Force due to gravity than the other. Since F = ma, we only have three choices. The mass must always be less on one side, the acceleration due to gravity must always be less on one side, or we need to introduce some other Force. So far, modern man has not been able to do either of these first two things. Adding another force is easy: just hook it up to a motor. But that takes more energy than you produce and is not perpetual motion.
The question for gravity wheel builders is "How do I move a mass from the bottom of the wheel to the top using less force than F = ma?" Without antigravity it would appear impossible. But I personally question if it is impossible in light of the reports of Bessler.
Man has been using Gravity Wheels for many generations. But they are not perpetual, per se. A simple example is a water wheel, which works on the same basic principal as every modern hydroelectric power station. Water falls from higher up to lower down due to the acceleration of gravity acting on its mass. The water spins a wheel or turbine. In this case the water is moved back up again by the energy input from the sun. The sun heats and evaporates water that then becomes less dense than air, causing it to rise. When it cools again, it will eventually fall back to Earth as rain or snow. A portion of that rain and snow falls to Earth higher than the hydroelectric power station and will again fall through the turbine and repeat this cycle.
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on March 30, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
Grayone,
AB is covering the practical, so here is some simplified theory.
Gravity is an acceleration field (NOT a Force). It is also highly uniform, meaning it is always in the same direction and magnitude, within a reasonable space. This acceleration field acts upon mass to create a Force since Force = mass x acceleration (F = ma). If you take any mass at a location close to the Earth's surface, the acceleration of gravity combines with it to produce a force. This force will drive the object towards the center of the Earth's mass. So objects fall if dropped or push down on whatever surface that supports them. If we move that object to the left, right, up, or down, it experiences the same Force due to the acceleration of gravity. (The last statement is only true for relatively small distances. Moving away from the surface of the Earth to say the orbit of the moon does decrease the apparent acceleration due to gravity. Also, moving left until you are on the other side of the Earth will give you a force in the opposite direction, but still towards the center of the Earth. But for the purposes of building a gravity wheel of normal scale, the acceleration field is uniform in strength and direction.)
The simplest way to extract energy from the force of gravity acting on a mass is to allow the mass to accelerate towards the Earth. That motion can do work, like lift another object through a pulley. Or generate electricity by spinning a wheel. But in each and every case the falling mass can generate only a specific amount of energy while falling, ie. turning with the wheel from the top of the wheel to the bottom. That amount of energy is known as the Potential Energy and is directly related to the magnitude of the mass and the distance of the drop from top to bottom. And that amount of energy that can be gained due to the acceleration of gravity is the same whether the mass falls straight down, turns on the path of a wheel, or takes any other path. But once it has fallen, the mass has no potential energy. The only way to get more energy out of it is to raise it back to the top of the wheel. And raising it takes exactly the same amount of energy as it generated when falling the first time. Again, the path (straight, circular, or any other) makes no difference.
A wheel with equal mass on both sides will not spin because the force on both sides is equal. This generates zero Torque. Torque = Force x distance (from center of the wheel to the center of every mass, horizontally only). You add torques from all mass on a wheel to see if you have any left over by assigning a + or - sign to clockwise and counterclockwise. So if we say clockwise is +, we add all the torques due to mass that want to make the wheel spin clockwise, and then subtract all the torques due to mass that make the wheel want to spin counterclockwise. If a wheel does not spinning (and has no holding brake), the torque on it is zero.
So to get a gravity wheel to spin we need to have a total Torque due to mass that is not zero: one side must always have more Force due to gravity than the other. Since F = ma, we only have three choices. The mass must always be less on one side, the acceleration due to gravity must always be less on one side, or we need to introduce some other Force. So far, modern man has not been able to do either of these first two things. Adding another force is easy: just hook it up to a motor. But that takes more energy than you produce and is not perpetual motion.
The question for gravity wheel builders is "How do I move a mass from the bottom of the wheel to the top using less force than F = ma?" Without antigravity it would appear impossible. But I personally question if it is impossible in light of the reports of Bessler.
Man has been using Gravity Wheels for many generations. But they are not perpetual, per se. A simple example is a water wheel, which works on the same basic principal as every modern hydroelectric power station. Water falls from higher up to lower down due to the acceleration of gravity acting on its mass. The water spins a wheel or turbine. In this case the water is moved back up again by the energy input from the sun. The sun heats and evaporates water that then becomes less dense than air, causing it to rise. When it cools again, it will eventually fall back to Earth as rain or snow. A portion of that rain and snow falls to Earth higher than the hydroelectric power station and will again fall through the turbine and repeat this cycle.
M.
mondrasek
I take my hat off to you. You have the gift of gab and a very good gift indeed. As a Blacksmith I tend to talk simple. And if I get this wheel working, that I am working on. I may need you for public speaking. If you can speak as good as you write, or help write my speeches for me. But you will have to compete with Fletcher who is also very gifted. ;)
Hi Greyone!
Don't worry,about the "correct direction" : if your first step,will be on the line of Newton's First Law (Inertia),everything will be allright.
The second step can be,to play inertia in such a way,to realize an asymmetric action-reaction arrangement with regard to a vertical reference line through the fulcrum
So,in two words: play inertia.
All the Bests! / Alex
I will give you an important clue to making a working gravity engine.
It must use symmetry to attain asymmetry, then that asymmetry must return the system to it's original symmetry, though in the opposite orientation.
Then the cycle can continue from there.
I will soon share a totally new concept that uses this principal for a working system.
Quote from: mondrasek on March 30, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
Man has been using Gravity Wheels for many generations. But they are not perpetual, per se. A simple example is a water wheel, which works on the same basic principal as every modern hydroelectric power station. Water falls from higher up to lower down due to the acceleration of gravity acting on its mass. The water spins a wheel or turbine. In this case the water is moved back up again by the energy input from the sun. The sun heats and evaporates water that then becomes less dense than air, causing it to rise. When it cools again, it will eventually fall back to Earth as rain or snow. A portion of that rain and snow falls to Earth higher than the hydroelectric power station and will again fall through the turbine and repeat this cycle.
M.
That makes a waterwheel a heat engine, not a gravity motor !Gravity is only one of its components, the thing that makes it work is heat.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 02, 2009, 05:17:36 AM
That makes a waterwheel a heat engine, not a gravity motor !
Gravity is only one of its components, the thing that makes it work is heat.
Hans von Lieven
True, the input energy is heat.
Not sure if I would call it purely a heat engine either, since it cannot work without gravity, as other heat engines can. It definitely needs both, so maybe it's best described as a hybrid? The point I wanted to get across was that a waterwheel appears to be driven by gravity, but in fact there is a reset mechanism where the extracted energy is being returned to the system. Therefore it is not a perpetual motion device like we typically discuss here.
Is there a way to make a waterwheel work without graivity? Of course a steam turbine can, but I can't think of a waterwheel type design off the top of my head. Let me know if you have run across one.
M.
Because we tend to design our wheel based on physics that we learn at school. We tend to think that our mechanical knowledge are complete.Unlike bessler he created a new approach of physics because current physics doesn't approve for perpetual motion (gravity driven wheel). 4 ounce sending 16 ounce flying upwards. This is the key.
A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself.
that's what he said. He discovered a new leverage system which he never revealed to the world of science. You must find the key first. My current research for now is to find this key. 1ounce raising 4 ounce of weight. I've come to a very interesting approach which I think never thought at school but that will be for another story.
All the best.
1 pound weight "weighs" 1.705 pounds (in an outward direction) at an orbit of 100 rpm around a fixed point and a radius of 6 inches.
I thank everyone who has been contributing on this thread. For eliminating what will not work, narrows down the field to what may work.
The question for gravity wheel builders is "How do I move a mass from the bottom of the wheel to the top using less force than F = ma?" Without antigravity it would appear impossible. But I personally question if it is impossible in light of the reports of Bessler.
The answer is make it float
@mondrasek
Interesting discussion that led me to a brilliant invention.
The image shows 2 persons, one at the North pole of the Earth and the other at the South pole, connected by a near massless arm of a few thousand mile length (don't worry about the difficulty of such - we will sort it out later).
Hey presto they can hover above the ground.
Now if we take this one step further we can have a ring built around the world and use it as an alternative to jets so long as everyone weighs themselves properly (do not trust women) and gets on and off at the correct time.
Brilliant, what do you think? ::)
Phil
Here is the image
Philip,
Looks like it should work with regards to allowing people to be lifted above the ground as you show. But how would that move us to a new location with respect to the surface of the Earth like a jet? Do we have to walk or drive there on the levitating ring?
M.
M,
You raise a good point.
We have 2 options.
First is to pedal with every seat having peddles, so if we have 10 million on at any one time and each produces say 100W then we have 100MW of propulsion and as everyone is in aerodynamic (no front so to speak) we should be able to manage a few hundred kmh if we have a tube cover.
Of course gettin people on and off is a bit of a prob but we should be able to come up with some insert and recover mechanisms.
The second is to put the whole thing in a vacuum tube with some sort of centreing guide (perhaps magnetic) and the passengers are in pods with air. Thus we can get the ring up to oribital type speeds.
With this idea and the previous the old emergency cord as used on trains would be a bad idea.
Of course the inherent advantage over jets is that there is no lift to drag ratio so even if motors were used the power consumption should be low.
And if it was not used for transport it could be sold as realestate or as an alternative to round the world cruising with a trip taking a year which equates to about 5kmh, that the passengers can manage to get on and off without special equipment.
Also works well because you can have Mc Donalds every 10km and a sort of drive through (except it would be rotate through, I guess).
P
sorry should read 1GigaWatt, not 100MW.
Quote from: grayone on March 28, 2009, 02:03:57 PM
Hello All;
What makes perpetual wheel attempts not work?
We see allot of opinions, and design. They seem like they are in the correct direction, but do not work. There is talk about friction and the keel effect that looks pretty much what has to be overcome in any falling weight design. Any opinions out there, on what to do to overcome these frictions and keel effects?
Basicly, the weight you use in a gravity motor are suppose to fall from a given hight. But that weight must be lifted upp there before it falls down. And guess what, it takes the same energy to lift a weight up as it release when it falls down. No magic.
The friction isn't an issue, really. Have you energy to spare, there is energy to fight friction - just like in any ordinary motor. However, friction is the very cause why a gravitymotor stops, because there is no enegy to fight it.
Bottom line:
Any given system that are suppose to work with conservative forces, has never, does not, and will never work. Period :)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on April 16, 2009, 10:38:14 AM
Any given system that are suppose to work with conservative forces, has never, does not, and will never work. Period :)
So one might say that the question for gravity (or magnet) wheel builders is, "How do I show that gravity (or magnetism) is not a conservative force?"
Quote from: mondrasek on April 16, 2009, 01:18:24 PM
So one might say that the question for gravity (or magnet) wheel builders is, "How do I show that gravity (or magnetism) is not a conservative force?"
You did hit the nail right on it. It is like placing a heavy stone upon a table, and show how that conserved position can do work. How crazy is it to believe that? The very same conservation is for gravity in general and magnetism.
Vidar
Quote from: mondrasek on April 16, 2009, 01:18:24 PM
So one might say that the question for gravity (or magnet) wheel builders is, "How do I show that gravity (or magnetism) is not a conservative force?"
You can't because they are, and gravity and magnetism have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: persume on April 17, 2009, 03:14:44 PM
You can't because they are, and gravity and magnetism have nothing to do with it.
Do you mean that gravity and magnetism isn't conservative, or has nothing to do with the conservation?
Vidar
Yeah @persume, I guess I do not quite understand what you were expressing either.
Is an atom (say monotomic Hydrogen) an example of a perpetual motion device?
Quote from: persume on April 17, 2009, 03:14:44 PM
You can't because they are, and gravity and magnetism have nothing to do with it.
The question was; how do you show that gravity and magnetism aren't conservative, and I answered that you can't because they are. And gravity and magnetism have nothing to do with perpetual motion. It is ridiculous and futile to try to attempt to rewrite how forces are to try to explain perpetual motion.
Quote from: persume on April 18, 2009, 02:03:39 PM
The question was; how do you show that gravity and magnetism aren't conservative, and I answered that you can't because they are. And gravity and magnetism have nothing to do with perpetual motion. It is ridiculous and futile to try to attempt to rewrite how forces are to try to explain perpetual motion.
So you believe that man knows all there is to know about gravity and magnetism? There is nothing left unknown about them that, once learned, could be exploited for our benefit?
I agree that there is nothing within the known (by me at least) reactions and effects of gravity and magnetism that leads one to believe that it can be harnessed to do work. I also understand that no one can explain exactly what gravity and magnetism are and why they act on other bodies instantaneously and without an apparent medium. Until that is explained, I cannot say that the answer will not allow for manipulation of the physics behind those phenomenon for our advantage.
I, for one, do not believe the physics we have today is completely flawed. Only that it shows only what we have learned so far. And there is much yet to be learned. Ask any physicist exactly what gravity is. Unless they are only to recite high school level texts, they will tell you that we just do not know (yet).
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 17, 2009, 08:52:35 PM
Is an atom (say monotomic Hydrogen) an example of a perpetual motion device?
Good question. Is energy being consumed or generated in order for the electron to stay in its orbit?
Quote from: mondrasek on April 18, 2009, 06:41:24 PM
So you believe that man knows all there is to know about gravity and magnetism? There is nothing left unknown about them that, once learned, could be exploited for our benefit?
I agree that there is nothing within the known (by me at least) reactions and effects of gravity and magnetism that leads one to believe that it can be harnessed to do work. I also understand that no one can explain exactly what gravity and magnetism are and why they act on other bodies instantaneously and without an apparent medium. Until that is explained, I cannot say that the answer will not allow for manipulation of the physics behind those phenomenon for our advantage.
I, for one, do not believe the physics we have today is completely flawed. Only that it shows only what we have learned so far. And there is much yet to be learned. Ask any physicist exactly what gravity is. Unless they are only to recite high school level texts, they will tell you that we just do not know (yet).
Where did I say that? I said gravity and magnetism are conservative, that's all.
Persume,
Sorry if I assumed too much. When you said It is ridiculous and futile to try to attempt to rewrite how forces are to try to explain perpetual motion. it lead me to believe that you thought that any further research was futile. That there was nothing yet to discover about gravity and magnetism. I apologize.
Personally, I do not think any new discoveries will necessarily rewrite our understanding of how forces are (though I still think that would be cool as hell). But I think that there is still the possibility of new discoveries that will amend the current laws and add to them. And in those new revisions and amendments I hope there will be the possibility that proper engineering will allow for exploitation for our benefit.
Most of all, I just want to know what Bessler did or found. Any ideas?
M.