BesslerWheel.com

[Ken]

The assumption that gravity is a conservative force is not based on the evidence. It is actually a childish conclusion to come to seeing how gravity is obviously continuous.

Lets take a spring. I think most everyone would agree a spring is a conservative device. You stretch it out, and you get back only what you put in.

So once you STOP acting on the spring, by stretching it, it then returns the force.

Gravity doesn't stop.

The mechanical device is a conservative device. You cannot extract any more power out, than is put in by gravity.

However, the only reason gravity has APPEARED to stop. was because of the design. Gravity never stopped acting upon the device. The inadequate design has failed to take continuous advantage of what is obviously a continuous force.

Gravity is easily determined to not be a conservative force.

[preoccupied]

Ken, I think you are the guy who put a screw in a wheel at an angle and the wheel turned because the screw was coming out. Am I right? How do you get the screw back in?

[Ken]

Preoccupied,

Sorry you are talking about someone else.

[Ken]

When you have a wheel that is a conservative device, (which inherent to all objects on earth in their natural state), even if it is overbalanced, what you end up doing is using gravity to accelerate the wheel, then using gravity as a BRAKE once the weights are trying to be lifted.

The FORCE, has not changed, nor has it stopped. As a matter of fact gravity is in full force causing the braking effect.

This is remedial in inquisitiveness in my opinion. And anyone who ever came to the conclusion that gravity was a conservative force was also remedial in his thinking.

Sorry Isaac. The worship of you by the masses is faith based, not evidence based.

Friction is called a non-conservative force.

Lets think about this for a second.

Does everything deal with friction? Of course not. Therefore it MUST be a conservative force.

Only when objects come in contact with each other does friction exist. Once the contact STOPS, the friction stops.

What IDIOT came up with the idea it was non-conservative?

Not that Isaac dude AGAIN!!!.

The fact Gravestone could not convince Newton to simply LOOK at Besslers wheel shows me Newton had more FAITH in his imagination than he placed in actual evidence.

Making his work absolutely useless.

Now when we start from the true starting point, we find friction to be conservative, and gravity to be non-conservative. With this information a gravity powered device is inevitable as long as someone is looking.

If I take a string tie a weight to it and make a pendulum, place it in a vacuum, will the pendulum keep going? Of course not.

What stopped it? Friction? Or gravity acting like a brake on the upswing?
Gravity of course.

HOW? Gravity MUST be non conservative, and friction conservative.
Its the only way.

For those who believe friction is non conservative. Please calculate the friction between the spin wave of a hydrogen atom and its nucleus.

:)

[KAS]

It's Gravesend!

_________________
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”

Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947

[Ken]

ah yes, its been a while since I read the story.

[getterdone]

Gravity is conservative, except it. But I don't think it has to be conservative within a wheel, too many variables

_________________
Beer is the cause and the solution of all my problems.

[Ken]

except it? Accept it?

Anyone who thinks gravity is conservative doesn't understand what conservative means.

[rlortie]

[rlortie]

http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/english/page0060.htm

Scroll down for 's Gravesande entry.

Also see; http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/english/page0040.htm#Bessler

[Richard]

I have yet to find "a" energy and I'm still looking for "a" force

richard

_________________
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think

[AB Hammer]

[jim_mich]

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Ken, at last you are talking my language!!!

_________________
I think our main differences is you see it as a physics problem, and I see it as a mechanical problem!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!

[Ken]

LMAO@ the so called understanding.

The question is not whether there is a difference in gravity on and upward moving object and falling object. No wonder people are so confused. They keep wanting to refer to an inferior design on a mechanical device as proof.

Lets use the spring as the example again. If the stretch the spring, then let go and the spring collapses. The comparison is the input vs output. This tells you if you have a COP greater than 1

Now what people want to compare is the input vs input on 2 various examples to try and come up with the the same comparison. One with the weight going up, and one with the weight going down. Or one using gravity as a brake and one using gravity to accelerate.

That is like stretching the spring, and when you let go, expect it to stretch more on its own.

When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. That is what Newton did.

The gravitational pull of the earth is an energy source which is an endless supply and can be tapped as long as the earth has a gravitational field.

The ingenuity of the device allows the extraction. The fact energy can be extracted proves the non-conservative.

Why people would allow the lack of mechanical ingenuity determine their facts instead of the evidence is a mystery.