Gravity Wheel Power Cycle - A working Wheel Is Possible?

[mondrasek]

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.

[mondrasek]

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.

[mondrasek]

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. 

[Grimer]

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&current=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. 
==============================================================

[Grimer]

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, 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).