Author Topic: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ? (Read 66185 times)

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #45 on:** December 01, 2012, 05:50:48 PM »

Quote from: mondrasek on November 26, 2012, 09:09:00 PM

Yes, but you used a buoyant weight, didn't you? Your experiment used a weight that was balanced by a displacement of the fluid, causing a rise in the water level in the pot. Fletcher's wheel design does not allow for displacement, only weight transfer. So pressure is created in the fluid, but no buoyancy "absorbs" the mass. The weight of the "ball" is not evenly distributed throughout the fluid. In the POP1.gif, the correct answer is on the right side, IMHO.
M.

Hi Mike,
Backtracking through the thread, I remembered your mail which wasn't too clear to me at the time when I read it first. Your analysis is spot on.
Should re-read your post earlier, would have saved me time
Regards, Michel

Aman Shah · « **Reply #46 on:** December 02, 2012, 10:42:00 AM »

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155

Thanks!

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #47 on:** December 02, 2012, 12:30:21 PM »

Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 10:42:00 AM

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.

Thanks Aman,
Good links, interesting information
Michel

johnny874 · « **Reply #48 on:** December 02, 2012, 05:29:20 PM »

Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 10:42:00 AM

Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155

Thanks!

Wikipedia has it wrong. A machine that generates more energy than it consumes would be an over unity device, not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion machine needs no energy input as it's engineering would allow it to sustain motion without the input of any energy. Since gravity acts equally on all parts of a true perpetual motion machine, it's changes to it's structure allows it to manipulate it's own mass increasing it's potential (allowing it to rotate or move continuously). Why a working one would be considered perpetual motion.
The usual reason given why it is not possible is that an atom or a molecule can not change it's behavior, ie. it's potential remains constant unless acted on by another force, Newton's Second Law of Motion. This is where the use of the term macroscopic actually applies to matter which is smaller than microscopic as a mountain is just as macroscopic as an electron. Vague definition, if it's not seen through a microscope, then it is macroscopic. Only 2 views of observation.

Jim

Aman Shah · « **Reply #49 on:** December 02, 2012, 05:58:13 PM »

Even if Wikipedia mentions wrong,neither perpetual nor overunity machine is possible.However,Gravity powered devices are possible.I hope that you read the analogy(meaning,similar phenomeneon) of my idea of a Gravity powered engine.Few inventors are already working on such free energy devices which convert naturally available energy from surroundings into usable form of energy,efficiently.

Free energy devices only mean devices which take in naturally freely available energy to convert it into usable form energy.Example is solar cell (the efficiency of solar cell as of now is not even reached 35 percent as of now and this inefficiency in technology is the main problem).

If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input?My common sense says No!Never.Hence perpetual or user unity machine is Impossible.Free energy machines do not generate power from nothing.

The need of the day is highly efficient and safe Free energy technologies,not like Nuclear fission which gives out toxic elements.

It seems silly for me to explain all these here,but many people have made a mess of overunity or gravity power,etc.I am not a conservative persion,but anything that is against a very very very basic Commonsense is not accepted by me.The important parts of my blog there is how gravity can be used a free usable source of energy,technically.

If you are wondering what can be the most most most basic principle of any real gravity powered device then its is as I mentioned in my blog:
"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

Yes,that's right,that's the secret,but its not a secret for those who apply their Commonsense to invent new technologies like gravity powered devices.
Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.But I have a basic concept which follows this pronciple as disscussed as a detailed analogy in my above mentioned Blog Articles.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy and mass conservation equation.

I believe you cannot ever get any balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation for a perpetual or overunity device.
Any device which has a balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation would follow the laws of physics or else would never and can never follow laws of physics.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #50 on:** December 02, 2012, 09:18:43 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 01, 2012, 01:09:20 PM

A dilemma of balance between a buoyancy and hydraulic example.
What is the overall gravity balance of the Hydraulic piston assembly that is loaded with a weight to one side ? The hydraulic cylinder is installed with a piston floor to measure the weight distribution inside and out.
How could the hydraulic example measure more weight on the right side than the left with an even pressure distribution in the fluid.?
Do you have an explanation as compared to the buoyancy example ?

What would happen if you froze solid the water in each case? Would the weight distribution felt by the bottom scales suddenly change as the water solidified?
Where is the Center of Mass of your system that is being weighed by the bottom scales?

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #51 on:** December 03, 2012, 07:28:02 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 09:18:43 PM

What would happen if you froze solid the water in each case? Would the weight distribution felt by the bottom scales suddenly change as the water solidified?
Where is the Center of Mass of your system that is being weighed by the bottom scales?

TinselKoala,
Having let it simmer for a while in the brain's back room, I think the solution to the dilemma is easy.

My view;
In both cases, as liquid or as ice (with the assumption of no binding of the ice on the side walls), the inner scales would measure the same on each side. The outer scale tot he right would measure more than the left

Why, because the upper piston does not have the capability to find its weight balance, it is held in the horizontal position by its construction and the walls it slides in, the upper piston can not take on a equalized position as dictated by the weight on top, it will always be horizontal. It is effectively the top piston that distributes the pressure evenly over the water or ice, and in turn, the water or ice transfers this pressure to the bottom piston or bottom floor equally, this distribution is referenced and seen only on the inside. This is the reason why the behavior is the same with any solid or with liquid.
The outside view sees the whole, including the vessel container walls and the inside pressure does not play a roll in its weight distribution assessment.
See the example below with water only to clarify the point made better. The pressure is equal on both inside floors (same water height). Pressure does not impact weight distribution ! (at least not in this case)
Feel free to comment or disagree, no problem !
Regards, Michel

johnny874 · « **Reply #52 on:** December 03, 2012, 01:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 05:58:13 PM

Even if Wikipedia mentions wrong,neither perpetual nor overunity machine is possible.However,Gravity powered devices are possible.I hope that you read the analogy(meaning,similar phenomeneon) of my idea of a Gravity powered engine.Few inventors are already working on such free energy devices which convert naturally available energy from surroundings into usable form of energy,efficiently.

Free energy devices only mean devices which take in naturally freely available energy to convert it into usable form energy.Example is solar cell (the efficiency of solar cell as of now is not even reached 35 percent as of now and this inefficiency in technology is the main problem).

If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input?My common sense says No!Never.Hence perpetual or user unity machine is Impossible.Free energy machines do not generate power from nothing.

The need of the day is highly efficient and safe Free energy technologies,not like Nuclear fission which gives out toxic elements.

It seems silly for me to explain all these here,but many people have made a mess of overunity or gravity power,etc.I am not a conservative persion,but anything that is against a very very very basic Commonsense is not accepted by me.The important parts of my blog there is how gravity can be used a free usable source of energy,technically.

If you are wondering what can be the most most most basic principle of any real gravity powered device then its is as I mentioned in my blog:
"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

Yes,that's right,that's the secret,but its not a secret for those who apply their Commonsense to invent new technologies like gravity powered devices.
Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.But I have a basic concept which follows this pronciple as disscussed as a detailed analogy in my above mentioned Blog Articles.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy and mass conservation equation.

I believe you cannot ever get any balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation for a perpetual or overunity device.
Any device which has a balanced and complete energy and mass conservation equation would follow the laws of physics or else would never and can never follow laws of physics.

Aman Shah,
>> If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input? <<

The perpetual design I am working on (Bessler's Wheel) would be considered gravity powered because gravity is the force that would be manipulated. What the wheel would be doing is converting the kinetic potential energy in a suspended mass (water).
What Fletcher is ignoring with his observations is that wheels rotate and the water needs to be pumped around the outside of the wheel, not from one side to the other.
Later this week, I'll start the design work and this weekend I'll start making some parts.
You are right though, people have made a mess of what is overunity and what is perpetual motion. I think of them this way, overunity requires an external source of power which it increases and a perpetual motion machine would be something that powers itself (manipulates gravity) while magnetic motors are considered free energy devices because they use a property of electro-magnetism that is present in anything that has been magnetized.

Jim

Aman Shah · « **Reply #53 on:** December 03, 2012, 01:33:08 PM »

Quote from: johnny874 on December 03, 2012, 01:16:59 PM

Aman Shah,
>> If you believe that perpetual motion exists or overunity can exist,then please tell me can something move on its own without external input? <<

The perpetual design I am working on (Bessler's Wheel) would be considered gravity powered because gravity is the force that would be manipulated. What the wheel would be doing is converting the kinetic potential energy in a suspended mass (water).
What Fletcher is ignoring with his observations is that wheels rotate and the water needs to be pumped around the outside of the wheel, not from one side to the other.
Later this week, I'll start the design work and this weekend I'll start making some parts.
You are right though, people have made a mess of what is overunity and what is perpetual motion. I think of them this way, overunity requires an external source of power which it increases and a perpetual motion machine would be something that powers itself (manipulates gravity) while magnetic motors are considered free energy devices because they use a property of electro-magnetism that is present in anything that has been magnetized.

Jim

Thanks!In bessler wheel community,there are different variants of definations of perpetual motion machines which different people follow.
For me,a perpetual motion machine is one which creates more energy than input

Or

which makes energy out of nothing.

Atleast this is the defination which I have studied in my 12th standard as well as in degree level.

When you talk of gravitational energy powered engine,it is certain that you are converting gravitational energy into electrical energy and you are not creating any new energy from nothing,neither you are generating any excess energy than input.
What you are doing is simply converting one form of energy(gravity) into other form of energy.

So if your gravity engine stick to the criteria"input (gravitational energy)= output (electrical energy)plus losses",no one can stop you from creating a gravity powered engine.

For me,any "energy converter" is not perpetual.But it seems that for our Gianna,any energy form converter even if its tidal energy due to moon's gravity is a perpetual motion machine.

Is it clear,Gianna???

I will seriously like to know what is Gianna's defination of perpetual motion machine.

Let me announce to the forum that Gianna don't know that,in machenics,in study of beams,you calculate reaction forces in beam supports,against weight of beams like simply supported or cantilever beams,just to ensure that potential energy of beam remains constant.

Proof:http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/explaining_motion/whatareforcesrev2.shtml

Gianna thinks that "gravitational potential energy remains constant because the masses and positions of the objects are not changing."

Bye for now.A bit busy.But would like to come back after few hours.
...................................................................................
Just make a note that a real gravity engine needs small energy supply like electrical supply similar to that of a catalyst which will be recovered back.
Without such external energy supply and without its recovery,you won't be able to make a gravity powered engine.

A catalyst is a chemical which makes a chemical reaction faster but which is completely recovered back after the reaction is complete.We don't use a catalyst in gravity engine but the principle of operation in most basic is the same.
Illustration:
Is this possible???
:" Gravitational energy form=Electrical energy form + losses"

Technically its correct since according to the well accepted law of conservation of energy :
"Energy can neither be created nor it is destroyed, however energy can be converted from one form energy to any other form of energy"

Now the question is how we make this possible.

So here is my answer.

"Little External energy source (similar to catalyst) + gravitational energy + losses quantity 1= recovered electrical energy converted from extra gravitational energy acted on heavy ball(similar to a catalyst) + converted Electrical energy + losses quantity 2"

Aman Shah · « **Reply #54 on:** December 03, 2012, 01:55:47 PM »

Just make a note that a real gravity engine needs small energy supply like electrical supply similar to that of a catalyst which will be recovered back.
Without such external energy supply and without its recovery,you won't be able to make a gravity powered engine.

A catalyst is a chemical which makes a chemical reaction faster but which is completely recovered back after the reaction is complete.We don't use a catalyst in gravity engine but the principle of operation in most basic is the same.

Illustration:
Is this possible???
:" Gravitational energy form=Electrical energy form + losses"

Technically its correct since according to the well accepted law of conservation of energy :
"Energy can neither be created nor it is destroyed, however energy can be converted from one form energy to any other form of energy"

Now the question is how we make this possible.

So here is my answer.

"Little External energy source (similar to catalyst) + gravitational energy + losses quantity 1= recovered electrical energy converted from extra gravitational energy acted on heavy ball(similar to a catalyst) + converted Electrical energy + losses quantity 2"

Aman Shah · « **Reply #55 on:** December 03, 2012, 02:09:48 PM »

I would like to hear Mr. Gianna's views on my above comment.

minnie · « **Reply #56 on:** December 03, 2012, 02:37:04 PM »

Hi,
I agree, gravity is a force and NOT energy,
John.

Aman Shah · « **Reply #57 on:** December 03, 2012, 02:41:17 PM »

Quote from: minnie on December 03, 2012, 02:37:04 PM

Hi,
I agree, gravity is a force and NOT energy,
John.

Mr John,energy is defined as Capacity to do work.
Work done is force times the distance.
Force is mass times the distance.
This shows that work and force are interrelated and inturn force and energy are interrelated.
It's seems like a fiction to hear that gravity is a force and not a energy.
Hence gravity is a source of energy called "gravitational energy" and hence its associated with gravitational force.

johnny874 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 03, 2012, 03:51:55 PM »

Quote from: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 02:41:17 PM

Mr John,energy is defined as Capacity to do work.
Work done is force times the distance.
Force is mass times the distance.
This shows that work and force are interrelated and inturn force and energy are interrelated.
It's seems like a fiction to hear that gravity is a force and not a energy.
Hence gravity is a source of energy called "gravitational energy" and hence its associated with gravitational force.

Aman,
A hydro-electric dam is one form of gravity being converted into work. Just as sloar energy and the wind need mediums to convert their potentials into useable energy, so does gravity. Just trying to help you out

Jim

edited to add; Aman, will take a break from posting but will probably read on your blog some. I do expect tinselkoala and his friend pirate88719 to cause me problems for pointing out that their idea was already on a television show. They have accused me of stealing their idea and have asked me to apologize many times for having done so.

Aman Shah · « **Reply #59 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:18:02 PM »

Quote from: johnny874 on December 02, 2012, 05:29:20 PM

Wikipedia has it wrong. A machine that generates more energy than it consumes would be an over unity device, not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion machine needs no energy input as it's engineering would allow it to sustain motion without the input of any energy.

Thanks Jim,when different people follow different definations,its very difficult to follow a single defination whichever is correct.
Hence better to mention that its possible to invent a gravity powered engine that does not violate laws of thermodynamics.
What a mess!!!
Name is just given for identification for a system or process,etc.
When Thermodyanamics textbooks and wiki has created confussions within people,it is too difficult to explain the real definations to public.It's better not to take headache to search for the correct defination and advocate the Same defination everywhere.

Quote from: johnny874 on December 03, 2012, 03:51:55 PM

I do expect tinselkoala and his friend pirate88719 to cause me problems for pointing out that their idea was already on a television show. They have accused me of stealing their idea and have asked me to apologize many times for having done so.

I am surprised with this.I know Jim as a good online friend,very dedicated to work at Bessler Wheel Forum.I don't think he will steal an idea like this.Which television show is this?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ? (Read 66185 times)

Red_Sunset

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Red_Sunset

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

johnny874

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

TinselKoala

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Red_Sunset

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

johnny874

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

minnie

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

johnny874

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?

Aman Shah

Re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?