Sunday, 8 July 2018

Challenging the Belief that it is Not Possible to Obtain Energy from Gravity

In my last post I commented that gravity might not be an energy source, just as we have been taught and continue to be so - but many years ago I came to the conclusion that this must be wrong.  My reasons for this are briefly discussed below.
If we believe (as I do) that Bessler told the truth then his implication that gravity provided the sole means of energy for his wheel means that gravity can be used as the ultimate source of energy for the wheel, even though we have been taught that this is impossible.  Please read on for my explanation.

The many tests and demonstrations the wheel underwent, all indicate that what Bessler said was true, and since he did not dare to cheat because being found cheating could lead to execution by the axeman, we have to accept his assurances.  In support of this we have the word of a knowledgeable man, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, known for his absolute integrity, that the machine was genuine because he had studied the interior.

Dismissing these points means that it is unlikely that anyone will ever find the solution to Bessler's wheel, despite the fact that we know it worked.

Apologies for briefly going back to basics.  In the case of a conservative force the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path. When an object moves from one location to another, the force changes the potential energy of the object by an amount that does not depend on the path taken.

In other words, in the case of gravity, if something is dropped it loses the potential energy it had at a higher point.  But we can restore it by lifting the object dropped, back up to its higher point

In the case of a non-conservative force the energy that it removes from the system is no longer available to the system for kinetic energy.

So our problem lies in finding a way to lift the fallen weight back up without using any additional forces other than gravity.

This is said to be impossible because the energy expended in dropping the weight has to be found in order to lift it back up again, but the energy has already been spent so there is no way to use gravity to lift it back up again - even though gravity is a continuous force, and a non-conservaive force could not drive a wheel of continuous rotation. Therefore it has to be a conservative force driving Bessler's wheel.

I have suggested the following argument countless times and people still don't get it.  The interface between gravity and Bessler's wheel is the weights.  Gravity makes the weights fall, and the weights make the wheel turn.

Interfaces play a major part in all types of motion. Wind and sails, steam and piston, flowing water and waterwheels, etc.  In each case an energy source provides the impetus and the interfaces react to provide motion.  So it is with gravity, it provides the force and the weights react to it.

Returning to my point about Bessler's wheel and not looking for an additional source of energy, everyone has been looking for this mysterious energy source that has been  suggested, for many years.  They have been unsuccessful because no such other source exists and neither is it necessary.  Steam, ambient temperature changes, bellows, live animals have all been suggested but nothing has been able demonstrate a similar power output which Bessler's wheel did relying purely on gravity

Therefore we must assume  that there was no other force used, and that leads us to the only possioble conclusion, Bessler found a way to use gravity alone to drive his machine, and that leads us to the final conclusion and it is this;

There is a way to configure the weights so that they respond to the effect of gravity by creating an permanent excess weight on the downwards side of the axle.  In confirmation of this, even when the wheel is stopped the overbalancing effect is still in operation and only the brake prevents the wheel from turning.  This overbalancing is produced automatically as soon as either a weight falls, or a weight has already fallen.  No other scenario can explain this feature of the wheel.

We can calculate the work done by gravity in making a weight fall by multiplying the mass of the weight times the distance it falls vertically, so at least we are allowed to assume gravity does do work!  The assumption that we cannot use gravity as an energy source relies totally on empiricism, a definition of which is, 'by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic,'   In other words the conclusion that gravity cannot be an energy source relies not so much on theory and logic as by observation.  In other words no one has even been able to configure the weights to make wheel rotate continuously therefore it must be impossible.

If you are still reluctant to accept the premise that gravity is a source of energy consider the following. British clockmaker William Clement produced the first longcase clocks around 1680. It could run for a week without having the weights raised to restart the clock.  That's a week of gravity power.  But now consider this.

The Clock of the Long Now, also called the 10,000-year clock, is a mechanical clock under construction, that is designed to keep time for 10,000 years. The project to build it is part of the Long Now Foundation.


The project was conceived by Danny Hillis in 1986. The first prototype of the clock began working on December 31, 1999, just in time to display the transition to the year 2000. At midnight on New Year's Eve, the date indicator changed from 01999 to 02000, and the chime struck twice. The two-meter prototype is on display at the Science Museum in London.

As of June 2018 , two more recent prototypes are on display at The Long Now Museum & Store at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco.

The manufacture and site construction of the first full-scale prototype clock is being funded by Jeff Bezos' Bezos Expeditions, founder of Amazon, with $42 million, and is on land which Bezos owns in Texas.

A clock designed to run for 10,000 years purely on the force of gravity.  Do you still think gravity is not a source of energy?

JC

43 comments:

  1. Hi John Collins!! Sure, water wheels run all day and all night on gravity. like Hoover dam for instance. There are four high voltage transmission lines coming into California. I think each one is equal to about 1,000 H.P.
    Anyway, Bessler's wheel must have run on gravity, for the simple fact they could self start from a standing start. Plus the first two wheels had to be restrained to prevent them from turning. Also the smaller wheels turned faster than the larger wheels which is an indication that they used gravity. Finally, the rim speed of the last wheel turned very close to the velocity due to the acceleration of gravity, which was about 15 feet per sec. As you know a weight, starting from rest will fall 16 feet in one sec. Again, this would indicate that the wheels were powered by gravity. Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An indication, Sam? That is circumstantial evidence. My thoughts exactly.

      Marinus.

      Delete
    2. Right, proof really, Sam

      Delete
  2. John,

    You are absolutely right. But tell that to a scientist and he will laugh. Tell the same scientist that gravity drives the Universe and he will agree. Unfortunately, sometimes words alone are not enough.
    Great blog, success with your build.

    Marinus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again you are right, only the experiment is meaningful, Sam

      Delete
  3. Follow up: My latest theory is; a compound lever(s) was used to lift the weights back up. But I've built a hundred wheels, so this idea could be wrong too. In other words, the difference, or ability in lifting a falling weight back up is the mechanical advantage, (MA) of the levers. If you get what I mean, Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam...In a true Bessler wheel, the weights don't have to be actually lifted by the levers...

      The design is such that the lifting takes place automatically...

      Yellow... It is not a big issue if the translation is correct... But the statement is true... That's how the wheel works...

      As long as the weights maintain their mass and position their movement is guaranteed...

      Gravity's impetous is necessary but the subsequent role of inertia, CP, CF, angular momentum is crucial to the wheel's unceasing motion...

      The wheel design is such that you can't say that only gravity is totally responsible for the entire act...

      If it was so then it wouldn't have taken this long...

      Delete
    2. Suresh, It's the unknown; you can say any thing you want to, and you could be right---------------------Sam

      Delete
    3. Sam... You could also refuse to accept everything I say... But, you keep forgetting to realize my claims... Why should I fool myself and everyone else by giving false information?... What exactly I stand to gain this way?...

      It pains to see you guys going off track often...rightly understanding BW is not in everyone's understanding... The right thing for anyone to do is to debate on it rather than dismiss like this... Why don't you prove me wrong?...

      You won't know how hard I had to work to learn the inner workings of BW... Have you observed anyone to sound so confident like me?...

      I repeat, the weights in Bessler Wheel don't have to be lifted by the levers... It's an automatic happening... This is the biggest mystery... Not everyone can really understand it... That's why they find it easy to brush my claims...

      The idea is so simple but quite difficult to hit upon... If you can work out how the weights fly up you will have the BW riddle solved... It is as simple as that... But people prefer otherwise...

      You know you have got to trick the gravity here... To make it aid the lifting... It is that trick that Bessler employed... It is that trick that Karl gazed upon and wondered in amazement... It is that trick that is so simple and yet quite evasive to everyone... It is that trick that can change the whole game... It is that trick that took bessler also so many years to comprehend... And, it is that very trick which is also described by Bessler as a major clue...

      Do you still think Sam that I would ever misguide you... Never...

      You will know how much right I have always been later when I reveal all... Be different Sam... Don't dismiss all that I say... You will certainly not find another me...

      Good Day...



      Delete
  4. "Special trials have demonstrated for eyewitnesses that this mechanical wheel is a self-rotating system of several heavy bodies and will be as long as the bodies remain heavy and the universe exists."

    This is a passage from Der Triumphirende. If this translation is true, it looks like he only used gravity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, can you confirm if the above comment from Der Tri is correctly translated?
      I have some doubts about this translation.

      Delete
    2. I don't know any German, yellow, so I can't advise you on the correctedness of the translation. If the above was taken from my version of DT then I would say it is correct. My translator had a degree in 18th C German and I trust his work.You can always take the original German and run it through a translator such as google or rnay of the other free translators..

      JC

      Delete
    3. it is from another translation.

      Delete
  5. As one weight is falling, another is rising and so they exchange positions and continue the rotation.... does that sound about right John...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravittea... That's correct... The weights act in pairs... As one goes up it's partner pair on the opposite side comes down... Like a See-Saw... They change place and continue... But there's a catch...

      You have to get the required designing of the lever-weight system...

      Which is yet to be conceived by any BW enthusiast...

      This is the heart of Bessler Wheel...

      Believe it or not...

      Delete
  6. I don't like the term 'falling' because it implies free falling, or at least it is impossible to tell what people are really implying when they say it.

    Falling means falling as in 'I fell to the ground'. You don't say I fell down the slide,or I fell down the ladder, or I fell down the elevator, unless you really fell of course.

    A controlled lowering of a weight on the end of a bar is not falling in my definition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t mind the word falling but you make a reasonable point. The word falling sounds as if the object is falling in an uncontrolled manner rather than moving downwards in. a specific path.

      JC

      Delete
  7. Quote...

    when an object is set to rotate centrifugal force is produced at no expenditure of energy. Centrifugal force is more or less like gravity. Therefore, Gravity's too must be capable of setting an object in a rotation and in doing so the rotation must be capable of performing works. This is the simple logic behind the Gravity Wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gravity can be replaced with magnetism to make make a BW perform...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Therefore, the entire credit of running BW shouldn't go to gravity...

    ReplyDelete
  10. RAF John, What is your thought on Mr.Wolff's statement about the iron spring ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know! RAF, but we know he thought he recognised the sound of a spring expanding but I’m not even sure what that sounds like. If it was to do with the removal of the weights prior to translocation then who knows? The way Wolff describes it, it sounds like a long noise as if the spring had quite a lot of travel in it, which doesn’t really tell me much. Maybe it wasn’t a spring expanding but rather Bessler sliding the weights onto a long lever which made the sound of the weights sliding along a metal bar sound similar to an expanding spring? Sorry but that’s the best I can do.

      JC

      Delete
  11. A boing/vibrato/twang noise not a sliding noise. where ever the wheel stops theres a least one of the five mechs sprung displaced, and ready to 'fire', hence the self starting
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with you... It is not a sliding noise by any count... But, the five mechanisms,...

    Well, I don't think BW ran on five mechanisms... It has got to be more... Remember the eight banging sounds...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have thought about this a lot, I wish I knew the answer to it. I don't have much faith in professor Wolff mechanical ability's-----------it might not have been a spring at all. No way of knowing for sure, Sam

    ReplyDelete
  14. Professor Wolff is very much right Sam... If you doubt him you will stand to lose the most important clues... He has given out most important clues... I can understand why you are skeptical about it... It is because JC sir once stated somewhere that Wolff cannot be fully trusted...

    It is the spring alright... Every lever comes attached with a spring... These springs make the levers swing faster without which the wheel's motion would be adversely affected... This twang happened during a demo when Bessler pressed a lever to extract a weight to be shown around...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suresh, What can I say, you must be right; I stand corrected! Sam

      Delete
  15. We certainly are having a great discussion about the validity of many items and how they all fit together to allow the mechanisms to allow us the privilege of receiving the blessings that are and will be available from a wheel that is actually turned by gravity. We are all in your debt for providing this forum for the exchange of thoughts and ideas about how to accomplish this wonderous task. How are you coming with your build John?

    ReplyDelete
  16. RAF Thanks John for your thought. M.T. 18 indicates the spring/ weight setup and Mr. Wolf concludes that "elastic arms" are situated at the wheel rim. Weights falling GENTLY against the rim can't be done with levers only but springs going into tension could. Your comment John? Also, what was Bessler concealing by wrapping a weight in a kerchief ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Probably a hole.

    Marinus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Marinus, Yes, I agree, a hole in the end with a setscrew, to keep it from sliding off the end of a rod. He did say the weights were attached to rods.
    Also, I get the feeling that the end of the weights hit a board at the rim of the wheel. It's my contention, he was describing a sliding rod, with weights attached to the end of it. If the lifter weights were close to the weight of the slider, they wouldn't hit very hard. I'm know, i must be wrong, but that's what he seams to be describing. Sam

    ReplyDelete
  19. Follow up, as far as springs, i just don't know------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think off two simple leaf springs (like; http://www.aps-ct.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Flat-Springs1.jpg ) attached to the end of a wooden rod. The weight is clamped between the springs and is able to roll within the clamped springs.

      I don't think it slides. There are weights at both ends (pairs) and it must be swinging. (maybe tumbling.)

      Marinus.

      Delete
    2. Kids playing with their rods; https://www.obs-de-opstap.nl/fotoboek/polsstokspringen

      I am dutch :)
      Marinus.

      Delete
  20. Wolff wrote that he heard the familiar sound of a spring expanding upwards, which to my mind means it was compressed first and then allowed to expand upwards. I assume the spring was compressed by weights being added to it in some way. If a lever was within the confines of a spring then the weights were slid down the lever onto the the springs which were kept compressed until sufficient weights had been added at which point they were released pushing the weights upwards along the lever to its end?

    Or the lever had a spring at its base which was compressed by rotating it downwards in an arc to allow the weights to be added. Once added they were then allowed to lift upwards to a balanced position?

    But I still think the spring sound is not important to the basic design, but thst is just my opinion.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  21. The springs are irrelevant and not part of the solution. They are merely used for construction or enhancement. Bessler said so himself that the springs are not responsible for the movement and that they are there just for enhancement and that it would also work without the springs because the wheel is driven by the weights only.

    The rod I described earlier is pivoted but I do not know where. I have read somewhere that Bessler said; “He could have pivoted them in the middle”. So it is probably not pivoted in the middle. I think it is somehow like a unbalanced wipwap that act as a, positive or negative, lever depending on the position within the wheel.

    Marinus.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gravity provides the initial impetus which is greatly amplified by other efficient tools, inside the BW, like the leverage of lever-weight system, swinging movement, ball bearings., Etc., And this is further boosted by CP, CF, inertia, angular momentum., etc., to keep up the overall wheel motion perpetually...

    This is the best possible definition I can think of to explain the mysterious power source behind the bessler wheel...

    The energy released by this method appears far much because we don't consider these various processes involved...

    A very efficient combination of lever advantage and other actions of different forces involved results in an unbelieveable and magnificent motion constantly counter acting against the negative effects of gravity, isn't it?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, gravity is the continuous force that drives the wheel. The design is such that equilibrium is only reached at a certain speed depending on the load.

      Marinus.

      Delete
  23. I think you are a pretty clever fellow Sunresh, I agree with your evaluation.... are you building a wheel currently?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Gravittea... You may find it hard to believe but I have the complete blue print of BW in my mind... I have worked out every detail... The inner mechanism is very astounding... found nowhere... Just like what Karl had observed... To me BW is no more a mystery... but, I haven't yet started the practical build yet... If you where close by I would have gladly joined you in recreating the Same... I am a bit lazy and there is no one to assist me... You are a nice man who can be trusted....

    Most people are Shrewd and business like... BW can be actually understood by genuine guys like you...

    I have one advice for anyone interested in BW... Never underestimate or look down on anyone or anything while trying to discover something of this magnitude... You never know where a vital clue can come from...

    Once again thanks...

    Good day

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bessler stated that springs are not the source of movement to counter particular accusations that it was wound up like a clock spring, and that provided the drive, read carefully translations of what he said in what context, he also stated they were used, he didnt qualify it with a 'but dont have to be' or 'in this wheel', just they are used, and tellingly never mentions springs again after such important information was imparted.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  26. Suresh, Thank you for your kind words. Today, I was able to make so incredible discoveries about the basics and their interactions that I had never thought of before. There is just no substitute for a build. There is a magical balancing out of forces that almost cancel each other out, and then the over balance condition can take over. A balanced wheel cannot turn. How is your build going John?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gravittea,
    You are right; and the best way to over balance a wheel is with sliders. Refference MT-15. If you could find a way to reset the sliders, the wheel will turn.
    Are any of you working on sliders? Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete

Challenging the Belief that it is Not Possible to Obtain Energy from Gravity

In my last post I commented that gravity might not be an energy source, just as we have been taught and continue to be so - but many years...