Sunday, 12 June 2011

Musings on Gravity

Trevor's comments about Besslers' wheel being a closed system got me thinking (thank you Trevor). I have posted an article at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ entitled, "Musings on Gravity". Any comments welcomed.

JC

55 comments:

  1. Hi John,..I would like to point out that the same gravity that made the weight fall can be used against it self by virtue of the velocity given to a falling pendulum enabeling it to return back up to the original position. So it is like gravity never existed in the first place.
    Without the pendulum the wheel could not work at all.How it could work is;gravity imparts velocity to a falling pendulum.If at the bottom the weight hits an anvil and is stopped.
    The resultant velocity times enertia energy is then stored and then released at a later moment, say at the apex of the wheel it can then be useful in turning the wheel.
    Timing is the key.
    Sorry for the laborious explanation,my point is that gravity can be used against itself using velocity and spring resonance.Thats just how I see it.What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. John, your musings on gravity are based on - how should I put this - a unique interpretation of nature. Jim Mich on the besslerwheel forum explained that gravity has no mass like wind or water; the analogy can't be drawn between the two. Wind and water are given their force, their energy, by the sun.
    Weights can't be lifted by "packets of gravity". You agree on your musing: gravity is an attractive force. It would therefore require a REPELLENT force to lift the weight. No such force in nature exists (that we know of).

    ReplyDelete
  3. James (Primemignonite)13 June 2011 at 00:39

    From "Wheel update and Karl's comment" of previous, came unto me sharply THIS enticingly cryptic, un-revealing phrase of JC's

    ". . . some very specific arrangement of the mechanism. . . ."

    Yes!

    "And so, it came to be known!"

    An utterance most perfectly descriptive (even though pleasantly teasing) of the DESIRED THING itself. No?

    There, "some" being taken as likely meaning with regard to THAT "principle" - the one leading us all to Madame Gravity's FINAL CONVERSION, so as to accomplish the labors of both Man and beast automatically - which is seemingly but one, and ONE ALONE?

    (Handily, one suspects-so or, at least this one does.)

    Yes! The very effecting trick itself -

    'THE DODGE'!!!

    Having loyally done my duty, I found whereunto directed, there in-closing the following

    ". . . If we are to believe Bessler that second packet of energy was also gravity."

    Indeed!

    Doubtless-so it thus is.

    As the Austrian Emperor himself advised so wisely to grosse komponist Salieri

    "Well . . . . . . . . . THERE 'TIZ!!!"

    And so 'twaz, and for us as well is too, but, NOW that we know . . . DO LET the trick itself come-forth and, with some faire dispatch, please? (For, even the patience of The Saints' themselves CAN grow short!)

    In all sincerity,

    Your Most Obedient Servant, Admirer, Follower etc., etc., and . . . etc.

    James

    (Any day now sure. Any day.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. In "Infinite Energy" magazine No 94 there was an article by an Estonian researcher, Kalev Jaik, and in the current issue (No 97) there's another one, plus a letter from a Henk Lockhorst, about a thermodynamic engine that would exploit both the sun (which keeps the atmosphere as individually moving gas molecules) and gravity (which as these people see it, slows down upwards-moving gas molecules, acting as a kind of Maxwell's Demon, explaining the observed decrease in temperature with altitude). Jaik and his physicist collaborator (Kristjan Laes) think that a laboratory-sized device to exploit this gravitational separation of gas molecules is possible, using a mixture of appropriate gases, and that it would deliver a useful energy output. As I understand it, it would essentially mimic Nature's rain cycle, but on a much smaller scale.

    So, maybe such a thermodynamic approach to exploiting gravity could work, but it wouldn't be what Bessler did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Arktos, that's a good example of how the laws of physics work to describe an energy cycle. The rain cycle is dependent on the sun and gravity. The difference in temperature of the layers of earth's atmosphere isn't directly attributable to gravity; the decrease is better understood as a property of air pressure, density and amount of water vapor present, but the atmosphere wouldn't be there without gravity so it plays an indirect role.
    Bessler's wheel couldn't exploit the sun, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes,..John,in an open system you have to bring energy from outside the wheel to influence it's operation.Gravity is not an energy.Like magnetism it is just an atractive force.
    It has the potential to be involved in energy creation by investing energy into it by bringing the components involved into a state of potential energy or from a state of tension to a state of rest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've learned something today. I've used the term 'closed' and 'open' systems to differentiate betwqeen Bessler's gravitywheel and perpetual motion machines for decades. Now I discover that there has been an additional term, 'isolated', in use. So now 'closed' hovers somewhere in between the two former ones. And just to confuse the issue a little more, apparently although isolated systems cannot exchange energy or matter, they can be influenced by gravity!

    So now Bessler's gravitywheel could be open, closed, or isolated!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. You think of gravity as female, James? Actually I agree, she's far to mysterious to be male.

    I've modified my "Musings", probably not for the last time.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, Bessler's wheel couldn't be all three types of systems. You still are making the mistake of referring to gravity as an energy on your musing page. It's a fundamental force in nature, it contains no potential to transform energy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trevor, gravity doesn't have the potential to be involved in energy creation. It only is involved in energy transformation; stored potential energy is converted to kinetic energy by the gravitational force field.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know, I was being ironic, Doug.

    And thank you Doug. Read my comment on besslerwheel forum.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  12. I read it John. I replied on there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I never said gravity was involved in energy creation on its own.I stated you have to invest energy using gravity.Of course to use gravity you have to incorperate mass as well.
    You can stretch a rubber band and that energy is invested or stored in the rubber band as potential energy.
    Please give me a little credit.This is not an inquisition!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not subjecting you to an inquisition, Trevor. I'm stating my understanding of the physics of gravity, energy, mass, and so on, and apparently your understanding of that physics is different from mine.

    When we stretch rubber bands, where does the energy come from that the rubber stores? My answer would be from your fingers and arms. In a weight located in a gravitational force field, where did the energy come from that the weight stores in it's location in that force field? My answer would be from the sun, or your muscles, not from gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I did not say it comes from gravity.It does not matter how I raised the weight. That fact is gravity made it drop,dissapation the potenial energy stored.Yes the energy came from elsewhere
    granted.I just take it for granted that you already understand where the energy came from.
    It was I that kept nagging John not to classify gravity as an energy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, you're right I understand where the energy came from.
    We seem to agree now that gravity only converts stored potential energy into kinetic energy. In clockwise rotation, gravity converts energy from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. From 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, kinetic energy begins to convert back to potential. That is the cancelling -out part of the equation no one seems to grasp; it does matter how you raise the weight: the energy came from elsewhere.
    I'm still not sure John is convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John , the irony is you still don't grasp the differences in meaning of open, closed, and thermodynamic systems because of your insistence that gravity is energy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. James (Primemignonite)14 June 2011 at 00:21

    John Collins said...

    You think of gravity as female, James? Actually I agree, she's far to mysterious to be male.

    JC
    13 June 2011 09:31

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Well, I'm not sure it should be assigned gender but if so, why not? All right. The feminine.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    John Collins said...

    I've modified my "Musings", probably not for the last time.

    JC
    13 June 2011 09:31

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    'Will take another look, John. I went to one of your linked sites recently, but it was down.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The linked sites are not down, James, I've just removed what was on there because I'm changing it - for the better, I hope!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  20. This raking in to gravity definition is juicy.
    Gravity is energy,without this energy everything would come to a stand still as we know in our world,can you imagine horse riding in the skies?

    ReplyDelete
  21. No John,..Energy comes from the falling weight times distance over time represented as power.
    Some thing had to raise the weight in the first place and it was not gravity.
    Nothing personal!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, I always assume that most people have a basic knowledge of physics, Trevor.

    Energy that is stored in the gravitational field is called gravitational potential energy. Work equals force times distance as stated in this formula: W = F x D

    As I was talking about 'work' I had no need to include time.

    I have stated on several occasions I can raise the weight again using gravity.

    Nothing personal here either Trev ;-)

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting musings on gravity, John. I like your statement: "call it what you will" when discussing "energy packets". We should be careful not to lose ourselves in terminology and/or our interpretations of the meaning thereof.

    The basic problem is very simple and has always been the same: the energy budget in a simple overbalanced setup is insufficient just as Bessler observed. Thus, we need to find a way to harvest more "packets" and/or a way to "amplify" (for lack of a better word) the amount of work that can be done with a given amount of energy.

    We need a device that independently of all other mechanisms oscillates within the machine, and which outputs (makes available) considerably more power needed than is required to keep it going.

    Such devices exist - the parametric 2-stage oscillator I keep droning on about, swinging perpendicular to the system (wheel)axis outputs 12 times the power needed to keep itself swinging. Ignoring timing nightmares for a moment, all that is needed is that the wheel "nudges" the pendulum weight at defined intervals such that it keeps going at a fixed rate and speed. From the output beam of the oscillator we can harvest 12 times the power of the weight of the overbalanced beam plus the swinging pendulum weight itself. This is not theory: it has been demonstrated on several occasions, notably by Melkovic and others.

    If that "energy packet" is more than is required to raise weights quickly in the wheel from, say, 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, the problem is solved and the rest is merely clever engineering.

    For instance, that output beam could be winding or tensioning some spring mechanism that releases its stored potential energy at defined intervals into the main wheel mechanism, or it's used to reset levers with weights, or raise weights with some simple clockwork-ish or pulley mechanism.

    Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Another person you might be interested in, and who did almost exactly what Bessler stated: make "a heavy weight lightly fly up" is the late prof. Eric Laithwaite, in his experiments with gyroscopic effects. In one (televised Xmas special) experiment he had a 9-year old boy effortlessly raise a huge, extremely heavy flywheel over his head. A feat impossible for even a strong, grown man. The "secret", of course, is spin.

    And yes, I realize that the flywheel has to be made to spin first and that no doubt requires considerably energy. But once spinning it does very interesting things - such as "easily" lift.

    Perhaps this is the "lowly tool" (a spinning top? hence, spinning weights?) that Bessler referred to. Maybe the key is resonance (oscillation) and spin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Andre, excuse me for commenting, I'd like to see this parametric 2 stage oscillator with a power output 12 times greater than power input. Is there a video or something where the output is being measured?
    If there was such a thing, it wouldn't need a gravity wheel to nudge it along. That wouldn't be as efficient as nudging it along with electricity, which has less resistance than a wheel. It would make more sense to power the gravity wheel with the 12x output of the oscillator.
    And if it was installed inside a gravity wheel , it couldn't operate independently of the wheel. It would be mounted to something inside the wheel, spinning with the wheel. If it was installed outside the wheel, it would have to be connected to it to transfer power back to the wheel. What am I missing?
    And, if it exists, why hasn't Milkovic made a fortune from this device? 12 times the energy out than in?

    Eric Laithwaite demonstrated angular momentum, it doesn't defy gravity or violate laws.

    I don't mean to sound combative, I know sometimes I come across that way. I'm only trying to help.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Andre and Doug, here's an interesting quote about a flywheel (gyro) precessing in a gravitational field:-

    "We look at the thing now in this way. The axis of rotation about which the flywheel has angular momentum is turning towards the axis A of the couple [produced by the offset forces of the flywheel's weight, and the force supporting it], with angular speed ω say. Now, and this is the point not recognised as a rule, this motion itself creates a rate of production of angular momentum about the axis A of the couple. For when an axis Ol with which is associated a directed quantity, L say, is turning towards a fixed direction Om at right angles to it with angular speed ω, there is a time-rate of production of the quantity of the same kind associated with the latter direction measured by the product Lω."

    That quote is from "A treatise on gyrostatics and rotational motion" by Andrew Gray FRS, p7. Although first published in 1918, I think it's still the best English language book on gyroscopes.

    Gray is saying that there is a time rate of production of angular momentum, i.e. a torque, produced by a precessing gyroscope. I suppose this can be found in modern gyro theory, but I haven't seen it spelt out so explicitly anywhere else.

    Of course, whether this torque can ever deliver a net energy output is the moot point.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Doug, a good place to start is http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Milkovic_Two-Stage_Mechanical_Oscillator. The inventor (a degreed engineer btw) has his own website too, not selling anything but explaining the concepts. There's tons of videos too, on that site, and on youtube. The oscillator should be mounted such that it stays in place, so it does NOT rotate with the wheel. A bearing in the output beam would do that nicely, gravity will make sure that it won't rotate with the wheel. It's therefore inside the wheel. A nice and comprehensive mathematical analysis of the forces generated in the system is also in the link I posted.

    Arktos (and Doug) - as for the angular momentum, that is, indeed the key here. It doesn't defy any laws of gravity, of course, but it does have the effect of making heaving weights "fly upward". How else can a 9-year old boy raise a 80-kilo weight over his head using one hand. And that's what we want - a heavy weight "flying up easily".

    Not sure this is what Bessler used, though, although it sure was novel in his time. And it sure does the job.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Andre, I've looked at the links; the measurements done by other scientists are in serbian language, so it's hard to tell if his claim has been independently verified.
    Anyway, just looking at it logically, the kinetic energy of this device is simply being transferred back and forth across the fulcrum, from the pendulum to the weight then back to the pendulum. The pendulum makes it seem the energy is being increased, but it's not. Once we weigh the bob on the pendulum, the weight on the other side of the lever, and measure how much energy it takes to keep it going, the output is not going to be 12 times the input. The easiest way to test it would be to see if the weight could be lifted higher and higher with each cycle of the pendulum. My instinct tells me it would quickly come to a stop after a couple cycles.

    A gyroscope simply obeys the law of inertia - it resists changes to it's motion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Doug, if you dig a bit deeper there's plenty of English materials on this device, also many English papers in PDF form discussing the physical properties and effects. I will see if I can find you some links and post it here. The point of the whole thing is that once up to speed, it requires only 1/12th of the force available at the output beam to keep it going. Therefore it acts as an mechanical "amplifier". That's also conclusively shown in several tests. There are also some novel more or less anomalous effects: if the output beam is overloaded, or even blocked, the pendulum is not affected. It really is a very interesting (and simple) device, reason also why it has been widely replicated.

    Sure, also a gyroscope (or flywheel) obeys all laws of physics; but the point is that is does enable us to lift a weight easily - make a "heavy weight fly up easily". The math is quite complicated, but the simple fact that it can do what we need is what makes it perhaps useful. It's not just a device that resists changes to it's motion, it can do more in certain multi-gyro configurations as Laithwaite (and others such as Dawson) have demonstrated.

    United States Patent 5,860,317 is interesting in this respect, and builds on this principle. In his (infamous) demo for the Royal Institution he demonstrated some of his novel concepts. Inside a box he brought before his distinguished audience were two electrically driven gyroscopes, each placed on a central pivot. Laithwaite made the gyroscopes rotate at high speed, and they rose into the air on the arms until they reached a curved rail that pushed them down again. The process then repeated itself. With the two gyroscopes motionless, the box weighed 20 pounds on an ordinary kitchen scale. With the gyroscopes spinning, the contraption weighed 15 pounds.

    At the time, he tried to explain it thus: "Then he tried: "Let me put it this way: You take a go-kart with no engine and sit in it. It is loaded with a box of lead balls. If you throw one ball out behind you, you move forward a little. Throw another and you move farther still and so on. But if these lead balls were attached to a strong elastic band and could be sprung back into the go-kart, you would have continuous propulsion. That is what a gyroscope does when it moves from one plane to another."

    Odd thing is: he is right. IN case of gyros, the "elastic band" does not have the (expected) effect of making the cart roll back. This is also visible in the Milkovic videos, where just such a cart is driven by "pendulum drive" doing basically the same: propulsion effect which are "odd" and superior.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Andre, that's what you meant in the first comment: it only takes 1/12 of the original energy to keep the pendulum swinging; not that it has 12 times the energy output more than input. That's a big distinction. That's goes for any pendulum - they needn't be attached to levers - once they're swinging, it takes a fraction of the original energy to keep them going.
    They don't give mechanical advantage; or "amplification". Only simple machines like levers and pulleys can do that. Mechanical advantage is the ratio of output force to input force. The lever in Milkovic's device is what gives the mechanical advantage, not the pendulum.
    You don't have to look for the English pdf's. I don't need to see them.

    Laithwaite's demos were "infamous". I've read about them. Where do you think those 5 pounds went? I know.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Come on now,..What Andre means is the ratio of work input to work output,not mechanical leverage!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Doug, I'm not talking about mechanical advantage alone. Here's what a scientists has to say about it: the Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator is a quiet revolution in Classical Mechanics. It consists of a balance beam with a pendulum hanging from one side and a fixed weight attached to the other side. When the pendulum is not swinging, the beam is balanced. But when the pendulum starts swinging, huge forces begin operating on the beam in a way that violates
    Newton’s Third Law of Motion. Under rigorous testing procedures, the data collected suggests that up to 12 times more energy can be generated on the balance beam and removed to perform useful work than is required to keep the pendulum swinging. This is contemporary work, and it is shaking the field of Classical Mechanics to its very core. Unfortunately, in the linear oscillator
    mode, it is impossible to create a mechanical feedback mechanism to keep the pendulum swinging using some of the mechanical energy liberated from the beam. The system only works when the pendulum is in free oscillation, so it can’t be mechanically connected back to the beam.

    It must swing freely. Milkovic has been working on using other means to close the loop and create a self-running system, including electric generators on the beam and electric motors on the pendulum. Therefore, the design of the Mechanical Engine may also solve the current set of problems related to a mechanical feedback mechanism between the beam (wheel) and the pendulum(s) that allows the pendulum to swing freely, but resets each swing to begin at the same
    height.

    When I first began studying Veljko’s work, I had an intuitive feeling that he had discovered the
    essential secret that powered Bessler’s Wheel.

    Note the emphasis on "quiet revolution" and (seeming) "violation of Newton's Third Law"; the fact that even blocking the output beam has no effect on the pendulum swinging.

    It's a remarkable, simple, and very powerful device. So simple a "carpenter's boy" could construct it. It really is something else. I think we have not heard the last of this thing, or this inventor.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Trevor, the Milkovic device is just a lever. The pendulum decreases the length of the lever; in other words, if the pendulum wasn't there, the lever length on that side would simply be longer to accomplish the same work.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Andre
    "data collected suggests" hardly instills confidence in the data collection.
    The only feedback that will ever be involved is the see-sawing of the energy. Back to the drawing board!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm sorry Doug thats wrong.Think about it.
    The pendulum swings on a near frictionless bearing so it's swing has no influence on the leverage of the main beam.
    Here's what happens!
    As the pendulums swings the weight of the pendulum doubles momentarily at 6 o'clock by virtue of angular momentum plus the weight of the pendulum itself.
    Now one can use this tug to do useful work providing you use a little feedback to maintain the swing of the pendulum.
    I happen to know that this principle is used in the wheel although,be it in a modified form to suite the mechanics of the wheel.
    I think Bessler referred to this principle as being one that maintains perpetual motion of the planets,but thats his opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Doug, with all due respect, we need to reason on facts, not merely opinions. What you are arguing, that the data collection instills no confidence, is merely your personal opinion. So is your refusal to read data, PDF's. All of that is your good right, of course, but it's not very scientific casu quo factual.

    I like your critical thoughts and opinions, and your knowledge of physics, but let's stick to the facts. Fact: this thing does what we need. Fact: so do gyro's. I don't care where Laithwaite's 5 pounds went. The fact is that a 9-year old boy was lifting a huge steel flywheel easily.

    Now isn't that far more interesting than advanced vectoranalysis?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Trevor, how could the pendulum's swing have no influence on the lever? That doesn't make any sense.
    Anyway, a pendulum is just a weight under the influence of gravity. The kinetic and potential energy of a swinging weight is being transferred back and forth across the period of it's oscillation. The energy gained at 6 oclock is lost, completely, at the top of each half period, 3 and 9 or 4 and 8 oclock, wherever the top of the swing happens to be.
    Who is the scientist that wrote this, Andre? I'll read the pdfs if that would satisfy you, and we can continue this with the same...information.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You're not reading me right..I said the pendulum has no influence on the LEVRAGE.of the beam,but it does have an up and down oscilation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm reading you right, Trevor. You don't seem to understand there is no difference, physically speaking, between lever and leverage. Lever is a noun or verb. Leverage is an adjective. Contrary to what you say, the pendulum has an influence on the leverage, or the action of, the lever.
    And the weight doesn't double momentarily. If you want to double the weight of a mass, you have to go to a different planet with double the force of gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  40. My referance to leaverage was to mean mechanical advantage which are one and the same.And ,..your're wrong again,it's the weight of the pendulum plus the equivalent weight of it's centrifugal force downward during it's swing,twice for every cycle in fact.
    What part this don't you understand?
    In any case,leverage is also an adverb which means I had to be referring to mechanical advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You can refer to it as mechanical advantage; that's the more broad term that applies to all simple machines (pulleys, wheel and axles, etc.) that provide mechanical advantage.

    The pendulum still exerts its kinetic energy on the lever. On the leverage. On the mechanical advantage. The only way it wouldn't have an influence is if it wasn't connected to the beam. Comprende?

    And no, I'm not wrong. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force, it's a reaction to the centripetal force that is pulling the pendulum towards it's axis.
    I know that's hard to understand, but it's an indisputable, scientifically measurable fact.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It's the centrifugal force that causes that reaction.The centrifugal force and the centrapetal force have to balance or cancel each other out in order for a planet to have a fixed orbit.
    Why are you trying to split hairs? We should be trying to solve the wheel!

    ReplyDelete
  43. You seem to understand the forces cancel. Does the weight of a planet change? Of course not. So how can you jump to the conclusion that centrifugal force adds weight to the pendulum, if the force is balanced by the centripetal force, like in your analogy of the planet?

    It's not splitting hairs; it's all that matters to a wheel "solution": the (balancing) forces. Since they balance, the only thing that keeps a wheel turning, or a pendulum swinging, is an outside energy, whether it comes from pushing the pendulum with your finger or some other means of energy.. All attempts fail when they don't take this into account.
    If you built a wheel with Milkovic's device included somehow, inside or outside, I can guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that your wheel won't turn unless you apply another external energy either to the device or the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Did Besslers wheel work, for at least very long uninterrupted periods of time, and produce tangible, usable power? I believe so, and I'm not alone. No matter how you look at it, no matter how much formulae you throw at it, no matter how balancing (or not) the forces in the wheel were, the fact remains that the wheel was rotating and producing useable torque.

    Were are overlooking something, dismissing something at forehand, without even trying it, based on Hallowed Laws. I can understand that, because they have been proven absolutely correct zillions of times.

    Still, the wheel was turning, unless we choose to ignore that too.

    I would be careful with guarantees, Doug. We DO have a device here (more than one, actually) that does what we need. A simple experiment that anybody can do in his or her garage will confirm it. And that's exactly was has been done, in garages, and in laboratories. It DOES enable the operator to "harvest", utilize, whatever you want to call it, 12 times the force from the output end of the beam as is required to keep the pendulum swinging. That's a simple fact. I don't care why that is, where it comes from, or does not come from, the fact that it does what is does is sufficient for now. Engineers and assorted eggheads can prove later anything they want about it.

    Remember the famous words of Tesla, not exactly an idiot, one of the greatest engineers and scientists ever (I paraphrase here) who said: "too many scientists these days lose themselves in evermore complex mathematical constructs, until they produce something that has no connection with reality".

    Sometimes we forget that experimentation can give us "odd", unexpected, results. In fact, experimentation and questioning ALL dogmas and "facts" is the BASIS of scientific progress. No progress has ever come from ivory-tower dogmatists. It's easy to throw around "laws" which are no absolute laws after all.

    We need to think out of the box. If our experimental results do not fit the model or the dogma, we need to revise the "laws", not shoot the messenger.

    We have a device here that does things that seem to violate Newtons Third Law to some considerable degree by absence of a reaction force when the output is overloaded or even blocked. No matter how you twist it - it DOES provide more useable power out than is needed to keep it going. Of course it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it does what it does.

    And that's all what matters. The rest is engineering. We should focus on the practicality, just like Bessler did. And with success.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Doug,I see now where you are coming from;You seem to have a problem accepting that inertia can be used for a substitute or to cancel out gravity.I never meant that the actual mass weight changes, of course that is constant.
    My approach to physics is more hands-on experience which helps me to go with my intuitive gut feel.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nice to see you back Andre,and to support your point further a Syrian farmer,tile layer and a shoemaker invented the MESSIAS MACHINE.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks Vincent. I heard about that machine, and read some about the operating principle. I recall a short video about it on youtube, where he demonstrated it using extremely crude yet effective means.

    I'm always reminded of the absolute impossibility of "making a heavy weight fly upward easily" when I see a fully loaded 650-ton Jumbo roar skywards.

    Real progress comes from doing things in new, unexpected ways.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Andre, did you find the independent verification of Milkovic's device in English, that proves it has 12x as much energy out as in?Then we can continue this discussion.

    The messias machine has never been measured. If you set one of these up, measured how much energy it took to spin the bucket, and measured how much energy was produced from the water falling back into the catch basin, it wouldn't be as efficient as an electric sump pump. If it was more efficient, they would be selling like hotcakes.

    Trevor, inertia can't cancel out gravity. How are you arriving at that conclusion? Inertia is a measurement of a body's amount of resistance to change in it's motion. It's not an anti-gravity force.

    Measurements. It's probably the most important part of the scientific process. That's the main reason Bessler's wheel is so seductive, the measurements were just vague enough to give the impression of genuine gravity drive.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Doug, like I said, there's plenty. Start here: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html. As you can see, it's in English. There's descriptions, videos, input/output measurements and experiments, mathematical & theoretical analysis on varieties of the machine, (independent) peer review documents, expert opinions, even the patents and more. Much if not all of it in English. There plenty more to be found elsewhere too.

    I did a replication myself, last December 2010, which was to a large degree in accordance with his findings. Also some experiments with inverted electromechanical gravity-assisted pendulum control systems, especially with a moving pivot and one experiment with "kiiking". But these were not purely mechanical systems. You can read about it in my older posts. I thought it was interesting to do, and I wish I had more time.

    One interesting application of this Milkovic system that I can see would be to have it to drive a inertia-dependent-swing (IDS) system, converting centrifugal force into very highs speeds of rotation. The relatively small but powerful movements of the output beam can get such systems up to amazing rotational speeds; and speed is power.

    But that IDS has nothing to do with Bessler :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. That "messiah" machine is quite interesting, actually, especially from a viewpoint of hydrodynamics. I read an analysis from a physicist about it, below are a few snippets.

    The best-investigated system that resembles the Messiah-Machine is the Taylor-Couette system. It consists of two, not one, independently rotating cylinders with water (or other liquids) in between. The cylinders can rotate in the same direction or in opposite directions, with variable relative speed.

    From a mechanical point of view the Messiah machine (what a name!) is a simple way to lift water and let it flow down again. But it's interesting because of fluid dynamics and properties. The big cylinder is set into rotation. The water that flows through the pipe into the cylinder gains speed and forms a vortex flowing up the cylinder. It naturally needs energy input to get it running. The surface of the water forms a paraboloid. At a certain speed the water stands just beyond the upper edge of the cylinder. If the system is accelerated further the water will flow over the edge. What needs to be researched here is the potential energy needed to lift a certain amount of water against the force of gravity and the kinetic energy that is bound in its tangential speed.

    Both potentials can be recuperated with a high efficiency; either by shifting the flow downward or by transferring the kinetic energy back to the cylinder with the help of a centrifugal turbine.

    The water falling down gains speed under influence of gravity and flows on sea level into a turbine, where the energy is transformed into electric power. Further has to be taken into account:

    - The loss of energy through friction in all mechanical parts;
    - losses through friction between cylinder and water in the phase of acceleration of the water;
    - the friction in the water itself, in the turbulent flow.

    The speed of rotation is not dependent on the total size of the machine however dependent on the proportion of height and radius and the precise form of the cylinder.

    What makes the system interesting is the friction in the water. Science observed many cases of negative (!) friction and other anomalies in vortical flow, which means, that under certain circumstances a vortex converts thermal or other energy forms into kinetic energy.

    Prof. Victor Starr described many of those phenomena in the book „Physics of Negative Viscosity Phenomena“, which attracted some attention in the year 1969. This machine is definitely worthy of some more study.

    Don't forget that fluid viscosity and adhesion are not only interesting but powerful concepts that help blade-less turbines (such as the Tesla turbine) operate in a extremely efficient and robust way.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I give up! Wrestling with some guys interlect is proving harder than solving the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I read the papers on his website, and it looks like they all reached different conclusions about the claims. One wasn't sure if it could be measured properly. His equations and explanations make sense, though. One measured the device using fish scales; it's no wonder he couldn't be sure of his test. So , I'm not convinced. It's just a lever, the pendulum simply shortens the required length. These tests are all 3 years old, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, there's many of them, on different variations of the machine, including electromechanical varieties. Quite interesting stuff. Actually, the latest research papers are of May 5, 2011. Can also be found on the same site.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Just for fun, I read the two papers dated May 5 '11 and August 4 '10.
    The '10 paper tries to show the vertically moving pendulum is generating a "gravity shield". Please. Come on, Andre. Picture 2 looks like something a 10 year old thought up.
    The '11 paper 's relevant points are the underlined ones. On page 4, at the bottom, note he says "If a pendulum could be made to move full circle"... This is a red flag. When analysis resorts to "ifs" then the analysis moves from concrete to speculation.

    Page 5 is where he begins to attempt to show "overunity", i.e., the moving pivot point of the pendulum is generating energy. Consider the first sentence: "The important thing to perceive is the fact that centrifugal force is decreasing when the pivot point moves downwards". What does that mean? It sounds like a bad thing to me, if you are trying to generate energy. He goes through a lot of impressive calculus, but at the top of page 6, he says "Centrifugal force is doing over unity work because of movement of the
    pivot point and it is equal to product of centrifugal force Fc and path passed by the force Δr". This is not only impossible, It contradicts his previous statement from page 5. At the top of page 11 he says " and any change of gravitational constant will not be important anymore". We all know constants don't change.

    His conclusion doesn't help his case. He points out that if you don't have a water pump attached to the device, that it has a bigger quotient of efficiency. Well, that's obvious. He says the reason is partial oscillation of energy. And what does that mean?
    It means the energy is oscillating back and forth. where? In the ends of the lever.

    It's just a balanced lever.

    ReplyDelete
  55. With regard to what Trevor said...
    http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2011/06/musings-on-gravity.html?showComment=1307904327778#c4087262782910723182

    I have to somewhat agree with you.Here's what I see happening with the Milkovic device.

    Quite simply a lever with equal length sides will exert a force on the output side equal to that applied on the input side. Everybody knows that! Now imagine this for a moment... attach a steel ball of ten pounds to one side of the lever with, lets say a piece of aircraft cable with a ten thousand pound rating. Drop that weight from a height that will allow it to reach terminal velocity. When the weight brings the cable tight it pulls the pendulum down. The force due to acceleration is greater than simply what would be ten pounds of force. Now since the Milkovic device is using a rigid member and not a cable. Some of the energy from the falling mass is lost because it's rate of decent diminishes due to the the fact that it begins to rotate on it's axis.

    The energy from the impact is there, we just don't observe it as a collision. It is what is known as an "inelastic collision". Ramond Head shows in a couple of videos

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQv1Z6Tbyus,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQv1Z6Tbyus,

    that with a lever in a 3.4 to one ratio and the long side being the work side, that the Milkovic device is still able to lift more on the long side than what is inputted on the short side. This is in contrast to the way a lever should work. It should actually output less.

    The reason as I see it is because the force of ten pounds acting on a lever is additive with the force of the impact collision that we never really notice but is there. Without getting too crazy with a bunch of numbers, Imagine all the forces as static just for a moment.

    Ten pounds of static force plus the force of the inelastic collision, minus the losses of the inelastic collision due to diminishment from the rotation of the pendulum's column is greater than ten pounds of static force.

    This is why this device behaves the way it does as Raymond Head has showed. This device will self run as I see it with the proper mechanical configuration.

    ReplyDelete

The Solution Lies within the Existing Documents.

We should return to the task in hand and leave aside the dubious benefits of Remote Viewing, we need to trust only what we know.  We can onl...