The email address for this site uses the word bogywheel and it has been pointed out to me for the umpteenth time that this spelling is incorrect and it should be spelled bogey or bogie. Bogie wheels are used, typically under railway carriages and I think they are called wheel trucks in the USA. I was well aware of this fact and deliberately mispelled it because I intended it as an acronym for Bessler/Orffyreus GravitY Wheel, BOGY wheel for short.
This brings me to something that has bothered me for some time. I used the word 'gravitywheel' because the wheel is driven by gravity - alone. Everyone knows that I am firmly of the opinion that Bessler's wheel only required gravity to work - no other forces were necessary for its continuous rotation. This viewpoint is certainly not universally agreed with, even among those who support my contention that Bessler was genuine. To try to answer such criticism I have attemped to argue the point from time to time, for instance, via my web site at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ under the heading 'The Collins Conjecture'. My words have bounced off the skins of the vast majority with little effect and I have to admit that the arguments were probably too speculative, confusing and poorly worded and what we need is something that is simpler to understand.
I have argued that because gravity is a conservative force does not mean that it cannot be used as we desire and that wind and water flow are also conservative which we already use for energy. There is one major problem with likening gravity to the wind and flowing water; despite the fact that it can be argued that each force is conservative and therefore capable of being tapped directly for such purposes as generating electricity, both wind and water act directly on windmills and water wheels, respectively, while gravity wheels require the addition of weights. It seems to me that there must be a better way of comparing the three forces to obtain a deeper
understanding.
To compare the three forces under the same circumstances the following would have to apply. To drive a gravitywheel requires that moveable weights should act on the wheel to cause it to overbalance and turn, or alternatively, a succession of falling weights from some external source; for a windmill to be tested under the same strictures we should have to picture a test in which we released into the wind-flow a succession of objects, helium-filled balloons for example, each carrying a small weight, which were designed to hit the blades of the windmill causing it to turn. But we would need endless numbers of balloons striking the windmill on one side to keep it turning. The same test could be applied to water flow; there would have to be a succession of floating objects striking a submerged wheel in such a way that it too turned.
Under these circumstances, the wind would be driving the weights, not gravity. No one would seriously suggest that that was the way to turn a windmill and it is obvious that if you tied the balloons to the blades of the windmill that it would not turn in the wind just because of the pressure of the wind on the balloons. But that is what we are suggesting with a gravity wheel. To solve this problem We have to design a weight-driven wheel that reflects the interaction between the wind and the windmill blades.
JC
So are you saying that the wheel needs to turn due to gravity but without using weights? Or perhaps we can use weights but we need to have them swing due to gravity but affect the wheel whilst the wheel constantly remains in a balanced state. And that their movement due to gravity pushes the wheel around in another way...
ReplyDeleteNo Damian, the wheel needs gravity to turn through the application of the weights. But we tend to look at the weights as an addition to the wheel, whereas the curved blades of all kinds of wind and water wheels have varying effects on the air or water molecules that inteface with them, but they are an intrinsic part of the design. We should therefore consider how we might arrange for the weights to be affected by gravity in varying ways dependant on their position relative to the wheel's axle. In basic windmill design, no part of the blade moves other than rotationally, but the surface is curved - or concave and convex in the case of the Savonius windmill dependant on whether it is turning away from or toward the wind. It is the contrast between the differing pressures on either side that makes the windmill turn and the same can be applied to the gravity wheel.
ReplyDeleteOn my web site at www.gravitywheel.com I asked some questions, "have you ever tried to ride a bicycle with only one pedal? Have you ever seen a water turbine with one blade? Or an anemometer with one cup? Or a Savonius windmill with one blade? Or a ships screw with one blade? Or a propeller with one blade?". To me it seems obvious that the answer is no, and yet the old argument that a single weight on the rim of a wheel cannot fall from the twelve o'clock position all the way around to the twelve o'clock position again proves that gravitywheels are impossible is still thrust in our faces as proof. There has to be a number of weights involved.
I used the example of the helium balloons to try to show that we were not comparing like for like when considering wind and water wheels with gravity wheels but I cannot say for sure if swinging weights are a vital component but I am certain that they would have an accelerating effect on the wheel if included and Bessler seems to be saying that they do. Whether they would spontaeously start the wheel rotating is debatable - I guess it all depends on how they are arranged.
JC