Builds

[Grimer]

You'll never convince Mark that gravities not conservative, lindgaard1, so you'll do best to simply ignore him. 

[MarkE]

You'll never convince Mark that gravities not conservative, lindgaard1, so you'll do best to simply ignore him. 

Grimer, extraordinary claims require compelling evidence.  If you, or Jim, or anyone else have compelling evidence that shows that gravity is not conservative, then by all means please show that evidence.

[Grimer]

Grimer, extraordinary claims require compelling evidence.  If you, or Jim, or anyone else have compelling evidence that shows that gravity is not conservative, then by all means please show that evidence.

If RAR works, as I believe it will, then you'll have the evidence soon enough.

[j_lindgaard1]

You'll never convince Mark that gravities not conservative, lindgaard1, so you'll do best to simply ignore him. 

  Thanks Grimer   

[j_lindgaard1]

Jim, I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.

No gravity / overbalanced wheel can possibly work because:

1) Gravity is a conservative field.  If a mass travels over an arbitrary path from a starting point back to that same point no gravitational energy is gained or lost.
2) All gravity wheels operate cyclically.  Over the course of a complete cycle, each and every element of the machine follows some path that ends up back where it started at the end of the cycle.
3) All real machines have real energy losses, such as friction.

1) Removes the need to perform detailed analysis of the path that any element of a proposed over balanced wheel might follow.  Levers, cogs, balls, fluids, magnets can move in arbitrarily complex ways, but as long as any element eventually ends up back where it started, there is no gravitational energy that can be extracted by that element's travels. 
2) Establishes that all elements of a gravity / overbalanced wheel eventually end up back where they started at the end of a cycle.  The machine might be designed so that a cycle is one, a few, or many rotations of the wheel proper, but eventually anything and everything ends up back at the identical starting point.

1) + 2) taken together mean that there is no energy that can be extracted from a gravity / overbalanced wheel cycle to cycle independent of the configuration or complexity of the design.

1) + 2) + 3) taken together mean that no gravity / overbalanced wheel machine can self-sustain.

I see that you contend that "gravity is no more conservative than any other form of energy".  Your statement is an extraordinary claim against First Principles.  It is up to you to show an example where the First Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be false.  If you can achieve such an amazing feat you will change physics as we currently know it forever.

  Mark,
>>   It is up to you to show an example where the First Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be false.  If you can achieve such an amazing feat  <<

Again, you missed the obvious. It states isolated system. Most systems, an example is about any mechanical system can be opened when ever the engineer who designs it wishes it to be so. By adding a heat exchanger, they just opened the system while controlling it's exposure.
Nuclear power plants have cooling towers which control heat build up from the fission process. By doing so, they control the entropy suffered from such a process by controlling it by opening it to an opposing potential, cold water. This prevents a meltdown like what happened at Chernobyl in the Ukraine when the fission process generated to much heat. I think they put the rods back in too quickly which caused the meltdown. They did not know at that time that the hot rods turned their energy inward when they were no longer exposed. They learned something new that has changed how such incidents are contained. If they would have slowly reinserted the rods, then their fission process would have slowly abated allowing the rods to cool.
This kind of goes to a new principle in physics that I have realized, it's one that allows for photosynthesis to work. No scientist has yet realized the behavior that allows CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2. They just don't know how to do that unless it is on paper.
I plan on getting an Organic Chemist to demonstrate a process that can make that happen. And if it works the way I believe it does, then Global Warming could be either slowed or stopped.
Of course, for that to happen would mean that engineers and scientists would need to work together to design an industrial process that mimics nature. Then and possibly only then CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants can be reduced to safe for the environment levels.
And would you like to know the kicker ? I'd have to keep my present job if I want to eat. Realizing a new principle does not put money in someone's pocket.


edited to correct grammar somewhat