This subject crops up from time to time. A regular poster on besslerwheel forum has long maintained that gravity is like the wind and this is an analogy I too have suggested on many of my websites for several years. But people simply don't get it.
They argue that gravity is nothing like wind and just because wind drives windmills the same cannot be said of gravity. It is common knowedge that the heat from the sun creates varying air pressures, causing high pressure areas to rush to fill in lower pressure ones, hence the wind. But how each force originates is not part of the argument. Yes, they are different physical forces, and indeed wind applies force to the external surface of an object whereas gravity applies its force to the atoms which make up the material of the object.
But the important thing to note is the resulting effect is just the same. If we picture wind as a stream of air moving across the earth's surface, a balloon floating in the air is driven along with the wind. If you tied the balloon to a piece of string and attached the other end to an immovable object it would remain stationary relative to the wind until it was released when it would again travel with the wind. You could take the balloon back upwind again, and repeat the same action.
The same thing works with gravity and a ball. The ball falls downwards under the force of gravity. It can be picked up and put higher up so it can fall again. Gravity is a continuous force and so is the wind at the point at which it interacts with the balloon.
The same applies to a stream of water with a boat in it. Each force can be shown to exhibit potential energy and kinetic energy. Forget where the water came from or how it and the wind originated, all that matters is what happens at the point of interaction with the object in question. No one knows how gravity happens although there are plenty of theories, but what we do know is gravity causes things to fall unless they are fixed in some way, on a shelf, hanging from a wire or held in your hand. Streams of wind and water also cause things to move, and also have potential energy because they are continuous forces, and they can also convert potential energy to kinetic energy.
The term 'conservative force' is vague and conveys a slightly misleading impression. 'Conserve' originally meant 'preserve', so a 'conservative force' preserved its force and power, in other words it was and is a 'continuous force'. So-called non-conservative forces are brief, explosive forces which cease once they have moved an object. If I hit a ball with a tennis racquet that sends the ball through the air, it travels onward due to the impetus I gave it but it ceases to move once the energy given to it has been expended. The same applies to billiards, pool and snooker balls, these are not conservative forces because their force is not conserved.
When I say that a conservative force is a 'continuous force', I mean that it is not a one-off explosive force but rather a lengthy, continuous force and although the length might be very short, it is still not the explosive force of a hit, but rather an extended push.
So those who claim that gravity is a conservative force and therefore cannot be used in Bessler's wheel are utterly wrong; it has to be a conservative or continuous force otherwise it wouldn't work.
A windmill goes round because the wind applies force to the sails; a water turbine rotates because water pressure is applies to the turbine blades, gravity wheel rotates because gravity applies force to the weights. We don't call a windmill a sail wheel, and we don't call a gravity wheel a weight wheel, We refer to diesel, petrol of gas engines because they run on those fuels, but actually it's not the fuel but the internal combustion of that fuel which drives the pistons and hence the crankshaft. It's not gravity that drives a gravity wheel but the weights which fall under the influence of gravity.
JC
The term 'conservative force' is vague and conveys a slightly misleading impression. 'Conserve' originally meant 'preserve', so a 'conservative force' preserved its force and power, in other words it was and is a 'continuous force'. So-called non-conservative forces are brief, explosive forces which cease once they have moved an object. If I hit a ball with a tennis racquet that sends the ball through the air, it travels onward due to the impetus I gave it but it ceases to move once the energy given to it has been expended. The same applies to billiards, pool and snooker balls, these are not conservative forces because their force is not conserved.
When I say that a conservative force is a 'continuous force', I mean that it is not a one-off explosive force but rather a lengthy, continuous force and although the length might be very short, it is still not the explosive force of a hit, but rather an extended push.
So those who claim that gravity is a conservative force and therefore cannot be used in Bessler's wheel are utterly wrong; it has to be a conservative or continuous force otherwise it wouldn't work.
A windmill goes round because the wind applies force to the sails; a water turbine rotates because water pressure is applies to the turbine blades, gravity wheel rotates because gravity applies force to the weights. We don't call a windmill a sail wheel, and we don't call a gravity wheel a weight wheel, We refer to diesel, petrol of gas engines because they run on those fuels, but actually it's not the fuel but the internal combustion of that fuel which drives the pistons and hence the crankshaft. It's not gravity that drives a gravity wheel but the weights which fall under the influence of gravity.
JC
John, you can (and should) utilize scientific method and prove your theory with simple experiments. You may use a hammer for the "explosive push" for example. Then, may be, you can use a steady and slow force in another case. Then, you can compare two cases and analyze the results. You do not need to design a perpetual motion machine for proving your view (which, I think, is not correct).
ReplyDeleteyellow
I think it was clear I was trying to provide an argument in favour of gravity as an enabler of Bessler's wheel. If you support his claims then you have find an explanation that doesn't conflict with the accepted laws of physics. If you disagree then you must find a solution outside those laws.
DeleteJC
What I mean is that what you are putting forward is easy to test. You should test it beforehand.
DeleteThe wind analogy is incomplete and not right exactly... What gravity analogous is the pressure difference that causes the wind. The cause of the pressure difference and the cause of the molecules in the air are the same: the Sun. It is basically solar energy.
If you want to insist on the wind argument, you should also put forward a way for creation of the weights in the gravity wheel case. The cause of the gravity should also constantly create weights in the system, which sounds absurd...
I beleive the wheel, but we shouldn't create our own theories without presenting data.
yellow
A non-conservative force refers to a time-variant force. Gravity is constant insofar as it does not change over time.
ReplyDeleteWhen a force is time-variant (non-conservative) then interactions with that force (displacements with or against it) do not have constant energy - they may lose or gain energy.
An "interaction" generally refers to a closed-loop trajectory through the field - typically meaning a displacement traveling equal distance in and out of the force field.
Obviously, a closed-loop trajectory through a static field yields zero net energy - whatever we gain or lose on the way in, is undone on the way back out; Thus, a conservative interaction.
When a force changes over time however, inbound and outbound legs of the trajectory may occur at different times, and thus different field densities and thus forces; the interaction is thus not conservative, gaining or losing net energy.
Think of any motor, engine, or generator of any kind (electrical, mechanical, thermal or whatever) - all depend upon time-variant forces - either switching or pulsing or otherwise exploiting a force which varies in time.
Gravity and mass however are constant, so 'gravity mills' - or more specifically, asymmetric gravitational interactions - are fundamentally, mathematically, LOGICALLY impossible.
The only plausible route to mechanical overunity is an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law; therefore, this is what Bessler accomplished. Gravity only played an incidental role in his mechanisms - providing a set currency against which gains could be enumerated and substantiated, as well as undoubtedly confounding observers by giving the outward appearance of a 'gravity mill'.
The energy gradient he was accessing can be considered in terms of the reduced cost of momentum with rising velocity afforded by circumventing the usual requirement to incur equal opposing counter-momentum when accelerating a mass; the standard cost of momentum is described by the kinetic energy term KE = 1/2 mass * velocity squared - in numbers, this means an initial 1 kg-m/s acceleration from stationary costs 1/2 a Joule, while a second helping costs 2 Joules (a fourfold increase), and a third, 4.5 Joules and so on.
Sidestepping the usual necessity of applying equal opposite counter-force and thus counter-momentum means we don't incur that 1/2 V^2 accumulator - so a 1 kg-m/s unit of momentum will cost only 1/2 a Joule no matter how much momentum we already have.
As you can see, with such an exploit we could buy, for example, 4 kg-m/s of momentum for 4 * 1/2 J = 2 J, while that quantity of momentum would normally cost - and crucially, remains worth, in any ordinary elastic collision or interaction, 8 J... so in this instance we'd profit by 6 J of gain.
This is, categorically, the singular and only mathematically plausible form of mechanical over-unity; therefore, this is what Bessler was doing. This solution is exclusive of all other possibilities - if Bessler was genuine, then this is definitely and definitively, without question, the sole route to replicating his success.
Whatever clues or mechanisms you or anyone else may be deducing from his works, their value will only be meaningfully assessed in terms of their implications for countering Newton's 3rd law. That is key to the solution, and there is no further question on this matter. This is the only option on the table.
DeleteAsymmetric gravitational interactions are a total non-issue, flatly impossible and so irrelevant.
Again, you must accept that if his wheels depended upon gravity for their operation - which their consistent vertical orientation would suggest - then they should also operate identically in zero-gravity under a constant 9.81 m/s (1 G) acceleration. As such, gravity is by definition of mere tertiary significance; it was something with which to initiate the motion, and also to cash in on the gained kinetic energy and so repeat the cycle. The substance of the gain however was, without question, energy-discounted momentum, sourced via an effective exception to Newton's 3rd law and thus the usual cost as dictated by the KE=1/2mV^2 (or RKE=1/2MoI*RPM^2) 'gold standard'.
Only by embracing this practical fact will you find the useful application of any prospective mechanical arrangement..
Thanks as always for your erudite comments Mr V. I always take a few minutes to understand your writing which is usually very technical.
DeleteMy thought in this blog was to try to support the argument that gravity could support Besslers wheel with the correct mechanical arrangement. I agree that the wheel would work under zero gravity conditions if the force of gravity was replaced by a constant aceleration, and that merely confirms the need for gravity to enable rotation in Bessler's wheel.
It does initiate motion and as you say such motion generates equal and opposite reactions, but this does not necessarily preclude a particular mechanical arrangement dulicating Bessler's wheel.
JC
Mr V, I'm often impressed with your "fluency" in the understanding of basic mechanical physics. I follow you most of the time but like Mr Collins I fall of the bus now and then.
DeleteIn the event of completing a working PM I would certainly not mind a mathematical analysis of it by yourself if you would not mind doing one.
I have theories on the mathematics behind my current ideas and concurrence or correction of them by yourself would be appreciated.
Oops forgot add:
DeleteZhyyra
IMHO
DeleteWind and Gravity are in some instances comparable and in some not.
I have developed (thanks be to God) a concept of gravity over the past few years that I believe is hitherto not common knowledge if known at all.
I intend to elaborate on this theory in the near future on besslerwheel.com forum but for now I would like to just inform of a difference between wind and gravity.
Gravity moves through things.
It is a force that will move matter, but only in the absence of enough resistance. Where a sail will stop (or tend to stop) the wind at its point of interaction a weight will not stop gravity. On sail ships, the sails are set in an array that is not one behind the other for this reason. The bombardment of air particles upon the sails deliver their motive force to the ship. Placing a sail one behind another would diminish the potential for it (the sail) to transmit motive force to the ship.
Placing a weight one beneath another will not diminish the potential energy of the one beneath. Gravity will flow through the above one (assuming that it is held stationary) and the one that is beneath will act no differently than if the above one were never there, should it be allowed to drop.
Why this difference? Simple. Wind consists of particles in motion, gravity does not. Has the graviton been found yet? I doubt.
Now, (not intending to debunk JC's reasoning, and indeed wishing to say something in his favor) a similarity. Direction. Both have direction and the effect of this upon the objects that they influence is much the same and therefore comparable.
Some argue the "push or pull" theory of gravity but, I tend to theorize that it is neither. This is however more within the scope of the bigger picture that I intend to paint of gravity soon on besslerwheel.com.
Zhyyra
Oops again :-\
DeleteThe above was intended to be an added comment and not a reply to Mr V's comment. Sorry bout that.
Zhyyra
Good point Zhrra, I had forgotten the fact that the wind shields a following sail thus there there is an important difference. Thanks
DeleteJC
Aha!
DeleteHE returns!
This new absolute statement of proposed fact of HIS, might profitably be kept in mind for our near-future reference:
"Asymmetric gravitational interactions are a total non-issue, flatly impossible and so irrelevant." - as proclaimed most solidly by no less than Vibrator, the knowledgeably unique, and impressively wondrous. (If I were a human worshiping sort, why I'd get down on my knees in thanks - in the wake of HIS ocean of potency of knowing as HE shares. By gum I would!!)
Also, there was this too the same ". . . an effective exception to Newton's 3rd law . . ." in which case, once seen, it will be law no longer, but rather only a suggestion? Is that it?
I believe, however, there is another possibility to add to the pile, one in which "Newtons Third" will remain intact and useful.
It is that it will be observed, once gotten realized and aturning wheel-merrily finally, to produce from absolutely NOTHING . . . absolutely SOMETHING, and that the effect will be one utterly and totally inexplicable by means of any earthbound/originated type science. (Something like "It CANNOT do as we are seeing it do! Therefor it is not!" that kind of thing, you know?)
Indeed!
This New Advent as I envision it, will be as an unbridgeable gap - one existing between what such science allows-for presently as dictated by immutable laws of Nature, and what is to be seen operating before observing, non-averting eyes.
These two will be found irreconcilable utterly. (Or, as put otherly, it will appear as magic, or the supernatural, which of course it WILL BE!)
To many the beautiful (or very ugly, depending) implication range will be crystal-clear, and many will rejoice what with The Great Question by it being answered finally but . . . others will find solace only in the slitting of their own wrists in order to escape the operating, producing, unearthly horror - John Murray Spear's "God Machine" realized!!! (But, Bessler had it aced FIRST!)
For these latter types it will be either madness or death in order to cope. (And the hoarier of physicist sorts will be most of these casualties. Well, good riddance to 'em; they served their negative purpose now off to their prideful, stub-born rewards. Fortunately the ones younger will adjust quite nicely, I believe.)
To close, verily, we are always brought-up and made better when HE appears, scattering here-and-there unto us HIS pearly treasures of book learning and massively expanded purview of outlook, if not quite YET wisdom. Hell, we'll take it all as-is, pending the rest. Lay it on us!!!
CHEERS to ya all!
James
Well done James. I love it. :-)
DeleteJohn Collins wrote:
DeleteGood point Zhrra, I had forgotten the fact that the wind shields a following sail thus there there is an important difference. Thanks
No, the gravity particles in a material are at such a small scale that the gravitational wind sees all of them. Think of a fleet of sailing ships with the ships spaced widely apart so that no ship shields any other ship. Inertial mass is concentrated in very small volumes, nuclei. Gravitational mass is concentrated in much smaller volumes.
I think just the opposite !!!
ReplyDeleteWe will never find the anomaly with a software (20 years of developpent) ... at best an optimization ...
A simple example for the wind, a boat and able to pull edges to wind up the opposite wind (no violation inside) for gravity it's the same,
Just an observation of common sense ...
The difficulty is to struggle between the "I want to understand" and what is, ask your software to create you a permanent chaos lol.
Anon, you seem to think I am using software for computer simulation? I don't know where you got that idea from, but I have never used it and I wouldn't know how to. I'm a confirmed hands-on wheel builder and have been for about 50 years!
DeleteJC
Who invented gravity? If the universe was empty at one time, as some people theorize, then how did gravity come into existence? Gravity didn't come about by chance. Every thing in the universe is precisely timed, and moves according to the laws established by the one who created the universe and everything in it. If you remove the letter "t" in the word "Can't", you'll be able to move forward in the quest for a true gravity wheel.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone hasn't achieved a true working model of a gravity powered wheel, doesn't mean that it can't be done. A 747 has thousands of parts that are needed in order to make it fly. A gravity wheel only needs a few parts to make it work. We have an infinite supply of fuel "Gravity". So all we need to do now is, design the right parts that will allow the wheel to go off balance and use the infinite supply of fuel "Gravity" to generate all the power we want.
Comments?
Easier said than done...You are right...But to get the right design is one thing and trying to build the same is quite another...I have scanned the entire internet and also read a lot but couldn't find anyone closer...Though it is very simple and needs few parts yet very elusive...No one seems to have realized the secret movement so far...It could take a long time...Much longer than being estimated now...And Whoever comes up with a design it Later becomes clear it is not what Bessler came up with...The present situation is very pathetic...Every year we hear the same promises and assurances...My only opinion is that we Just remember Bessler's simple clues while building and inventing...
DeleteWell, my design may not be just like Bessler's, but who cares? As long as my gravity wheel works, I'm satisfied.
DeleteI agree with you, PM...But I was under the impression that we are basically here to solve the BW mystery...The youtube is littered with numerous free energy wheels...And anyway, who really cares...There is one successful secret arrangement that is really marvellous...And it is the only design that deserves praise as it works very efficiently and this has been proved by Bessler... Other, designs may not attract that much attention...Or maybe, not work at all...If there was another design that worked Bessler would have found out already...
DeleteI agree with PM. Who cares?
DeleteIn my view the important thing about Bessler's Wheel is that it shows gravity can be harnessed. If that is so there are likely to be other ways than the way bessler used. Newcomen harnessed the power of steam but other better ways were developed.
John, what are your thoughts on the pendulums in the drawings? It seems there is no witness testimony about them.
ReplyDeleteyellow
The external pendulums could just be speed governor's...Or maybe even just included by Bessler to distract others from figuring out the actual internal design...Or might have been inserted in the drawings later after pu lic demo....Just my guessing...
DeleteThanks Suresh. I think you are right about speed governing. They seem to regulate and slow the rotation down when the wheel is unloaded. I think Bessler wanted to increase the life span of the wheel by adding those pendulums. Very good idea indeed.
DeleteBTW, wasn't the Kassel wheel unloaded during the test?
yellow
There's a very good explanation of gravity here:
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
Paul
Maybe, it is just not only gravity that keeps the wheel turning...In the case of gravity wheels unlike in windmills, where it is the sheer wind pressure... Gravity could be playing a single role...By creating the heaviness...Other forces like PE, CE, CF, Angular momentum and inertia may also be the vital links... People usually don't agree when only gravity is proposed...We should consider all the technicality and Dynamics involved when something heavy rotates...A windmill can be easily stopped when the wind is not flowing... But it may take a heavy braking in the case of gravity wheel...A windmill attains speed almost instantaneously... Everyone just thinks of only gravity assisting the Bessler wheel since other forces involved remain very subtle...Just my two cents...
ReplyDeleteIt is CP not CE... Centripetal Force..
ReplyDeleteI agree Suresh. We may never know the "exact" mechanism for Bessler's wheel or how it even worked. We can't go backwards in time to ask him, but we can move forward and design a gravity wheel to meet the energy demands of our time. Bessler had his day, and he was successful despite not being able to sell his dream. And there are many people who want to keep his dream alive and that's fine. I too have a dream or goal to make a successful gravity powered wheel. Even if people don't share my vision of bringing this type of power to today's environment, I'll keep trying until I succeed.
DeleteEveryone has a dream that they would like to see come true. We can all work on one persons dream, and try to make it come true, or we can help each other to make our dreams come true for everyone.
I don't want to chase after the wind when I can get my hands on something tangible like a true working gravity wheel for our time.
If our goal is to create a gravity powered wheel then Bessler is showing us the way...If we deviate from this way we aren't going to succeed...This is the first and the best lesson we have to learn... Because Bessler has already done all the necessary homework required and ensured that there are many clues for us...If we think that we can can follow our dreams and work towards it to create a wheel that differs from Bessler's then we will always remain dreaming...That is for sure...All these three hundred years go to prove this amply...It is not that we may Never know his original mechanism...We certainly can...But who listens... Everyone has his own pet theory and thinks it is the only way... For eg; Ken... Finally, what happened?... proper debating and proper understanding of clues is the call of the hour...
ReplyDeleteWell, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I would be very surprised if my design wasn't just like Bessler's original design. It's simple just like his, has the correct moving parts that allow the wheel to remain out of the center of gravity, and is one directional. I see no reason to look further into his drawings. I'm convinced that my design is just like his.
ReplyDeleteBut I do have one question to ask, and this is for anyone on this forum: In all traditional gravity wheels including Bessler's, are there more weights on the ascending side than there are on the descending side?
ReplyDeleteIn my setup ... There is not more weights on the ascending side, than there are on the descending side. Even if use non equal or odd amount of pendulums in wheel and all pendulums seems to be visualy unbalanced, ... but witch actually are not. Why?
DeleteFirstly because, if there take away all pendulums "main" swing possibility, the wheel will not start to move.
Seconly, even if there make now push, to start the wheel manualy, wheel finaly stops. Because then all pendulums acts like roberwal balance here.
Thirdly, turning force is coming from weights swinging, witch cause small rearrange of outer positioned weights. Witch make finaly unbalance possible.
Fourtly, there is no matter, is there odd or even amount of pendulums, there is always equal amount of weights in wheel and in correct final tuning, both wheels will work.
PLMKRN
One weight at the far end on descending side is cabable of lifting two or more on the ascending side... Bessler wheels totally depend on leverage...The levers have to be smartly designed... Especially in Bessler wheels the weights are placed at equal distance from one another...So no question of having more weights on descending side... Circle is divided into equal quadrant...The magic happens during rotation...Due to unique lever-weight combo design...
ReplyDeleteJohn....
ReplyDeleteAre you 100% convinced that you have the secret to Bessler's wheel?
Yes, and I know it's the same design as Bessler's becaue I have gradually solved the clues he gave.
DeleteJC
100% convinced means that John has already a runner at home and only tinkers on the explanation why it works. Great. Hopefully he soon will rescue us from our torment.
Deleteovaron
Can you give me an approximate time frame as to when your wheel will be finished?
ReplyDeleteThat's difficult because i'm still busy doing stuff in and around the house we moved into last year. Hopefully I'll be able to get on with the wheel after I've finished some painting and putting up a weatherproof roof at the side of the house. I'm guessing I'll be able to start on building the wheel in about three weeks, but I don't know how long that will take, then I go away again in a couple of months. Anyway why the question?
DeleteJC
Good morning, John,
ReplyDeleteI have the same problem I am overwhelmed lol ...
My friends who know what I'm working on make fun of me by saying that the real problem is not to make a wheel, but to know what I would do next, and that's why I'm taking my time. Newly retired :)
Hi thx4. I've been retired for 17 years, and I fear that time might be running so you don't want to take your time for too long! :-)
DeleteJC
I ask because, once I'm finished building mine and I get it to work, it's going to be very hard to keep it a secret.
ReplyDeleteDon't keep it a secret, tell the world if it works. Good luck
DeleteJC
Will do 😁
ReplyDeleteBeing positive about the outcome is good...It is difficult to contain the excitement...But being successful depends on a lot of things...The internal mechanism that Bessler came up with is infact the most rare...Hard to grasp...And highly incomprehensible... Unless, one gets all the parameters right, success is going to be very elusive... Bessler has ensured secrecy by giving out some distracting clues...it is not so easy to distinguish them...He wrapped a weight in a handkerchief before passing it for inspection...A lever made some noise while he adjusted or reset or removed a weight...These are some give away...What I am trying to say is that we have to consider so many such things and make sure everything before coming to conclusions...
ReplyDeleteThis is an important time for the planet. This forum is an ideal place to find those of us who are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to bring this to light no matter the cost... whether personal or financial. I applaud you and your perseverance. John is open to helping whoever gets this done. You are among believers here.... use it for your advantage.
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering, does your wheel use springs? The reason I ask is; In one of your books, someone was quoted as saying that Bessler's wheel might have used some type of elastic material or movable arm/lever along with or in conjunction with the weights. Was the warped board used as a spring? Would a rubber rope work better than a spring? I just need some positive feedback so I can get started on this wheel I'm building. The only problem I can with building one of these wheels is, getting the off balance weight to reset and get back to the starting point. I'm not going to say that this is an easy task, I just want some guidance from you or someone on this forum.
Your reference to the warped board has proven to be a incorrect translation, see discussion on the Besslerwheel forum.
DeleteI don't plan to use springs although I can see how a weak spring might be advantageous in initiating an action asap.
JC
I see, well I'll just put it all together and hope for the best😊
ReplyDeleteHi John, just wanted to say hello and wish you all good luck and all the best with your progress. Tonight i'll be on my way to Germany for a week of relaxation and more research.
ReplyDeleteThanks Øystein. Sounds interesting, will you be visiting some of Bessler's locales?
DeleteJC
If we can find one mechanical design that exhibits overunity, then it is possible that other designs may exist as well. With this in mind I will share with you an equation that quantifies the overunity of a pendulum whose pivot point is allowed to drop during the pendulum swing.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you not familiar with the workings of a Milkovic two stage oscillator, I suggest you Google this on YouTube. While this design has inefficiencies which reduce the overunity potential, it does show the basic concept of a swinging pendulum pulling one side of a hinged lever down, thereby raising a weight attached to the other side of the lever.
Assume the pendulum bob has a weight of W and is raised to the horizontal position and allowed to drop. Under ideal conditions (no friction or air resistance) the bob will swing to the other side of the pivot point stopping again at the horizontal. If the pivot point drops a distance H during the swing, the bob will lose potential energy in the amount of
W x H
This is also the amount of energy that must be applied to the weight to raise it to the initial drop position.
Assuming no friction or air resistance, or energy loses due to design inefficiencies, the swinging pendulum has the capacity to perform work on the lever in the amount of
1/2 x pi x W x H
The net energy gain (E) is therefore
E = (1/2 x pi x W x H) - (W x H)
or
E = (1/2pi - 1)WH or approximately .571WH
Not a lot of overunity extra energy, but it is positive. At this time I am not willing to show my work as it will be easy to infer the principle that allows for overunity, and once you learn the principle, you can apply it to more elaborate designs that produce significantly more free energy.
I provide this information with sincerity and honesty to you all. I am nearing the end of my research and hope to reveal all very soon.
z
E = (1/2pi - 1)WH
ReplyDeleteIn the immortal words of Scotty, "that's the ticket laddie".