Forum member Grimer looked at the theoretical power cycle of a gravity wheel in the thread on Sjack Abeling's Weight Power Station started by AquariuZ. His analysis is shown here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7150.msg170033#msg170033 . Several other posts follow that expound on this analysis a bit. I'd like to invite any and all who have the expertise to discuss this analysis to do so here.
Thanks,
M.
Copy of Grimers post:
Well, I've worked out the power cycle for the Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel - and here it is.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/Sjackcycle.jpg
So it looks as though his gravity wheel really will work, though as he says, why someone didn't find this out a long time ago just by chance is a bit of a mystery.
Still, I suppose before knowledge of the Carnot cycle and the Leibniz calculus it would have been a bit of a mental stretch.
When I first recognised that the acceleration leg (d2x/dt2)and the rate of change of acceleration leg (the adiabatic leg - d3x/dt3) gave the potential for a power cycle I couldn't see where the other return legs were going to come from. But then I realised that cos everything is turning round the returning legs are the same as the outgoing legs. Tricky, eh!
But what on earth has this got to do with a Carnot cycle you may ask?
Well, think of the balls being thrown around as monster molecules and the structure enclosing them as the cylinder. The equivalent of the thermal potential change is the gravitational potential change and the adiabatic leg (the balls rising up) is where the motion energy is exchanged for gravitational energy.
If you don't understand what I'm on about (or even what I'm smoking ) I can't say I blame you.
And if you want to ask questions I'll do my best to answer them.
Oh, and one more think to note. The containing structure can be made as stiff as needs be so no significant power is lost to the structure.
Copy of reply by hartiberlin:
Hi Grimer,
looks good, so it is a right turning cycle process, right ?
How can we make the area inside the curve bigger, for more output ?
Can you please calculate this and let us know, how to do this in the real world ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Copy of reply by Grimer:
Thanks for your reply, Stefan. I must say I didn't really expect any. For one thing I thought the idea of an area on a displacement vs. time graph representing energy would too big a stumbling block. I can explain why it is energy but the explanation requires both an unconventional view of time, a view of stress as an alias for an equilibrium natural strain which leads to energy as strain energy.
I don't know what a "right turning cycle process" is I'm afraid. Perhaps Harvey's idea of a mini tide machine may be useful.
I know the area inside the loop looks a bit constrained but it better than Carnot and no-one has ever complained about that.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/Stefan1.jpg
From the sound of things I don't think one will need more power. Anyway, let's wait to see it actually working first before worrying about bells and whistles.
Copy of next on-topic post by Grimer:
Hi Stefan,
I've been swotting up on the history of Johann Bessler. What a fantastic story. It seems to me the evidence of his wheel's reality is very strong indeed. Which can only mean the Sjack has stumbled upon its secret. I suppose someone had to, sooner or later. I shall have to find the time line in relation to Carnot.
Cheers, Frank
Copy of next follow up post by Grimer:
Carnot's work was over a century after Bessler's wheel so Bessler must have developed his wheel by trial and error. I suppose what has prevented its re-discovery until now is the idea the a perpetual motion machine driven by gravity is impossible. demonstrably this is not the case as more perceptive people, like Harvey on Fizzx, realise.
Copy of post by spinner:
@Grimer
Thanks for your explanations!
Although i can't agree with everything you said, i still like your views on inertial mechanics....Hey, Mr. Laithwaite's work... We talked about it once...
Btw, high order derivatives (like the rate of change of acceleration) are just a mathematical description of a physical motion (not an energy source).
It would be interesting what kind of real values for a "rate of change of acceleration" would you be getting, for instance, when calculating an integral of a closed path of a weight in a "gravity wheel"....
I'd say this 3rd derivative would be very small, but still a negative number after completing a full circle.
Copy of reply from Grimer to quote from: spinner on April 10, 2009, 11:04:40 PM (Btw, high order derivatives (like the rate of change of acceleration) are just a mathematical description of a physical motion (not an energy source).):
Absolutely right. And the isothermal legs and adiabatic legs of the Carnot cycle are also just mathematical descriptions of piston motion and are not in themselves an energy source either. It is the way they are put together that makes them derive energy from the thermal gradient. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to realise that.
After all, as Harvey has pointed out on Fizzx, there's nothing new about deriving energy from gravity. Tides do it all the time. Think of the Bessler Wheel as a human scale tide. It makes it feel more homely.
Mmmmm....The following post has been rather overtaken while I was writing it. But I'll post it anyway.
I see someone has already anticipated to my advice to mug up on Bessler and come to a similar conclusion to mine.
Very sensible. ;)
(edit: Oh dear. I realise it was my own post I was reading :-[ )
==============================================================
Since I wrote the above I've been reading up all I can on the history of Johann Bessler and his gravity wheels. I recommend everybody who is interested in Sjack's invention to do the same.
It seems pretty evident to me that Bessler had what he claimed and that Sjack has rediscovered it. The thing that prevented it being discovered in the interim is the false ideas about Perpetual Motion Machines and the nature of gravity. After all, Einstein has a patent on gravity and it would be professional suicide for any academic to start research into harvesting the vertical gravitational wind that blows steadily downward with a Bessler wheel.
Of course, once one radically changes ones view of gravity and sees it just another potential difference like a magnetic potential difference or an electric potential difference or a thermal potential difference then the idea of harvesting it becomes quite mundane.
And talking of push gravity I have a chap I correspond with a chap (Xavier Borg aka Ing.Saviour) who has designed an experiment to determine whether gravity is a pull or a push. And here it is.
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view¤t=X1.flv
Well, that's enough for a starting post or you'll all get mental indigestion and fall at the first fence if I may be allowed to mix metaphors. :)
==============================================================
Of course the real stumbling block for people who are familiar with an area on a strain vs. strain diagram representing strain energy is that the x axis in my diagram is time.
Well, as I explained in my essay on time (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-3/commentary5-3a.pdf), length and time are interchangeable. I've not yet got my head around which length one replaces time with in this analysis but I know it's possible and I'm more interested in the final result than getting rid of all the kinks.
Going back to your schooldays you'll probably remember that the easiest way to solve problems was to work back from the answer.
We know the answer. We know it works. We know that means energy enclosed on a Carnot style diagram. So we work back from that.
(Now, obviously, we don't absolutely know it works. We are not the pope. And even he is only infallible in matters of faith or morals. But it ain't very sensible going into battle thinking you might lose).
I've found the letter on push gravity
==================================================
Hello Frank,
Hope you are fine, as you seem to be absent from the most interesting
places, including this group. I know you will love this one:
http://www.blazelabs.com/e-exp21.asp
remember to check out the movie on the same page.
We exposed some more lies in mainstream teaching, proved the existence
of the aether wind in terms of ultra-cosmic radiation, the pushing
force of gravity, and the possibility of making a flag which responds
to this wind. Next job is to work on the windmill.
Best Regards
Xavier Borg
==================================================
Mmmm.... he's a bit late. The Bessler wheel responded to the gravitational wind four centuries ago. ::)
Quote from: mondrasek on April 11, 2009, 04:24:18 PM
Copy of Grimers post:
Oh, and one more think to note. The containing structure can be made as stiff as needs be so no significant power is lost to the structure.
Right, so of course the best stiff structure to use is glass...right? :p
Quote from: persume on April 11, 2009, 11:21:57 PM
Right, so of course the best stiff structure to use is glass...right? :p
Glass is strong, does not wear easily and can be molded.
BTW this is the wrong thread to comment on the Abeling Project.
8)
Deleted my comment as it has been covered by the previous post.
Grimer,
Your higher level derivative analysis is beyond me. But I understand the Carnot cycle in regards to basic thermodynamics. I am looking for corollaries between the Carnot cycle and the gravity wheel if they exist. The gasses of a Carnot cycle follow the Nobel Gas Law of PV=nRT, if I remember correctly. So if we cause a change in Pressure and/or Volume it results in a corresponding change in Temperature. This is used in refrigeration and heat pumps. Also, if we change the Temperature by adding (or removing) heat we force a change in Pressure and/or Volume and can use that to do work, e.g. turn a drive shaft.
I was thinking that P and V could maybe be analogous to Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy in the gravity wheel. But I can't see how the Acceleration of Gravity can be analogous to Temperature. In the case of Carnot cycles, Temperature has a range and thus a gradient can be established. But not so with the Acceleration of Gravity, a constant at the surface of the Earth.
Also, in the case of the Carnot cycle the energy transfer is dependant on phase change, from liquid to gas and back again. That unique property, where a liquid remains at a constant temperature, while absorbing heat, until the liquid is completely converted to gas (and visa versa), is what allows for this cycle to be used to perform work, right? Do you see anything analogous to this phase change scenario available for gravity wheel dynamics?
Your idea of working backwards from the answer is exactly why I wanted to learn more about your analysis and hopefully get the input of others. Thanks for your efforts so far.
M.
@ mondrasek
"Also, in the case of the Carnot cycle the energy transfer is dependant on phase change, from liquid to gas and back again. "
Not so. You are getting confused with steam engines.
Quote from: Grimer on April 12, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
You are getting confused with steam engines.
Hardly! Now I might be too familiar with the modern AC refrigeration cycle...
But I agree, the Carnot cycle does not need to include the phase change of the gas. That is only used in modern AC refrigeration cycle as that unique phenomenon allows for rapid expansion and therefore rapid heat absorption of a greater amount of heat. We do not need phase change to be part of a successful Carnot cycle.
Thanks,
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on April 12, 2009, 12:19:10 PM
Hardly! Now I might be too familiar with the modern AC refrigeration cycle...
But I agree, the Carnot cycle does not need to include the phase change of the gas. That is only used in modern AC refrigeration cycle as that unique phenomenon allows for rapid expansion and therefore rapid heat absorption of a greater amount of heat. We do not need phase change to be part of a successful Carnot cycle.
Thanks,
M.
Sorry. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. ;)
Here is my idea of how the iso-gravitic (for want of a better name) and the adiabatic (much better because that is not specific to thermal changes) two legs rotate to give us four. Think a two stroke engine replacing a four stroke engine to give a mental crutch.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/rotation.jpg (http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/rotation.jpg)
I've also realised it makes more sense to see the abscissa as the reciprocal of t which is a period. It is easier to see that as a length and thereby a strain. The beauty of log scales is one only has to worry about ratios.
Something else to get the mental juices flowing. Think of gravity as a rather weak and washy thing. After all it only causes an acceleration. It's a physicist type of thing whereas, Jerk, rate of change of acceleration, d
2x/dt
2 is much tougher, an engineer type of thing, When the massy woman sees Jerk she looses all interest in Fizz and is happy to be dragged by the hair to Jerk's cave.
Now on the other thread they are talking about a final hockey stick section which could well be d
4x/dt
4and which would enlarge the energy area even more. I seem to remember that Jones C Beene on the Vortex forum christened rate of change of Jerk, Jounce.
You can see I am thinking aloud but this is always the way one gets to formulate new views. Turn a picture upside down and one sees thing one hadn't seen before. Shake concepts around like dice and they will form a new pattern.
Quote from: Grimer on April 12, 2009, 03:24:40 PM
Sorry. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.
Well I *was* trying to be facetious! Humor might draw more minds into the discussion.
Again, most of what you are discussing is beyond me at this point. But I will endeavor to remember and learn anew what I must to pursue understanding of your analysis.
Is there anyone who you could invite who would be able to add to this discussion?
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on April 12, 2009, 04:01:16 PM
Well I *was* trying to be facetious! Humor might draw more minds into the discussion.
Again, most of what you are discussing is beyond me at this point. But I will endeavor to remember and learn anew what I must to pursue understanding of your analysis.
Is there anyone who you could invite who would be able to add to this discussion?
M.
I wish, ::)
Quote from: mondrasek on April 12, 2009, 04:01:16 PM
Well I *was* trying to be facetious! Humor might draw more minds into the discussion.
Obviously humor is not appreciated on this forum. Maybe that is why never anything substantial emerges?
Pity. Especially for the individuals who are really trying (like yourself).
AZ
A working wheel is not possible and logic should prove that.
Putting aside the physics and just dealing with reality...
If it were possible it would have been done by now, after all it only involves wheels, weights, arms, pulleys etc.
Human ingenuity would have worked something out by now.
But hey there is a whole bunch of people on the other thread denying reason and working furiously to do what no one has done.
I admire them that they can keep going for weeks on a dead horse idea.
I just feel it is a pity that the debate cannot rise to a more productive level.
Proper theories or postulates being made leading to strong debate and to possible new ideas.
P
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 16, 2009, 10:35:20 AM
I just feel it is a pity that the debate cannot rise to a more productive level.
Proper theories or postulates being made leading to strong debate and to possible new ideas.
And just what do you think *this* thread is about? We have an analysis of the gravity wheel power cycle that appears to show it is possible. That is what this thread is about. Can you argue this mathematical analysis?
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 16, 2009, 10:35:20 AM
I just feel it is a pity that the debate cannot rise to a more productive level.
Proper theories or postulates being made leading to strong debate and to possible new ideas.
P
Then start by re-examining all you were taught and assuming Newton et al were wrong.
Take it from there and bring something completely new for a change..
Please.
I thought this thread was an open minded question. It seems that Mondrasek is a believer that wants an argument. Everyone here takes an attitude that everything is possible and that physics is so wrong. Why not take a view that physics is probably right and that we search for ideas that go with the flow rather than against.
There is no analysis that gravity wheels will work that even looks like a scientific or logical argument.
Aquariuz suggests I am the problem for believing in Newton et al, well it seems that agreeing with established science is a better starting point than trowing it all out and believing in rumours such as some here seem to follow.
We all see that there are thousands of claims for overunity but none pan out, then we get conspiracy theories about MIB etc. All I can say is that on the site I have put forward 2 technologies (curled ballistic and rotating thermionic generator) that have no found flaw but I have never received a threat.
I am offering a cash prize on curled ballistic thermionics for someone to find a flaw (no takers). I have debated with a dozen professors. Now you guys that believe in magic ignore my ideas but then say I should come here with new ideas! I think I have proved my preparedness to challenge conventional thinking but do not ask me to believe in superstition, conspiracy or rumour.
Phil
Follow on from last post,
If someone saying gravity wheels make sense let them post some proper calculations of forces etc, not their intuitive feel about the forces.
Put forward a theory then it can be debated.
P
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 16, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
I thought this thread was an open minded question. It seems that Mondrasek is a believer that wants an argument. Everyone here takes an attitude that everything is possible and that physics is so wrong. Why not take a view that physics is probably right and that we search for ideas that go with the flow rather than against.
There is no analysis that gravity wheels will work that even looks like a scientific or logical argument.
Aquariuz suggests I am the problem for believing in Newton et al, well it seems that agreeing with established science is a better starting point than trowing it all out and believing in rumours such as some here seem to follow.
We all see that there are thousands of claims for overunity but none pan out, then we get conspiracy theories about MIB etc. All I can say is that on the site I have put forward 2 technologies (curled ballistic and rotating thermionic generator) that have no found flaw but I have never received a threat.
I am offering a cash prize on curled ballistic thermionics for someone to find a flaw (no takers). I have debated with a dozen professors. Now you guys that believe in magic ignore my ideas but then say I should come here with new ideas! I think I have proved my preparedness to challenge conventional thinking but do not ask me to believe in superstition, conspiracy or rumour.
Phil
I was not aware of your curved ballistic thermionics theory and will look for it because given the reactions it sounds interesting.
Not being hampered by formal technical schooling I find myself at disadvantage to theorize in a scientific way and understanding theories which are formulated in a mathematical or scientific way.
This disadvantage does not outweigh the advantage of my layman´s look at things, however childish or even insulting (unintentional) that may be to the educated ones in here. You are right, there should be sound debate, hopefully without too much hurt ego (not specifically talking about you here) and preferably with a tone of lightness.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 16, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
I thought this thread was an open minded question. It seems that Mondrasek is a believer that wants an argument. Everyone here takes an attitude that everything is possible and that physics is so wrong. Why not take a view that physics is probably right and that we search for ideas that go with the flow rather than against.
Phil,
I started this thread because Grimer gave a Power Cycle analysis that he claimed showed that a working gravity wheel was possible. I do not fully understand his higher derivative analysis and comparison to the Carnot cycle. So I invited anyone who did understand and could argue for or against this analysis to please do so in this thread. I was hoping to learn from that exchange.
If you can argue
the analysis, please do. If not, please move on.
I was not trying to pick a fight with you. Just was only attempting to show that you were asking for the exact thing that was the reason for starting this thread:
You wrote:
I just feel it is a pity that the debate cannot rise to a more productive level.
Proper theories or postulates being made leading to strong debate and to possible new ideas.Grimer has a new theory (to me anyway). That is what this thread is about. Please discuss it here if you can. But if you want to discuss other analyses, please start a different thread.
M.