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
