Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[jim_mich]

Cox called his clock a "perpetual motion machine"...

Not quite. Cox specifically called his clock a true perpetual motion machine. Bessler also specifically called his wheel a true perpetual motion machine.

A false perpetual motion machine might be one that is impossibly trying to get something for nothing, in the classical sense of the ages old attempts at gravity/inertia PM. Gravity and/or inertia PM have proven false to date.

As I said, the English language needs a range of words for a "perpetual motion machine". Everyone has a slightly different concept of what "perpetual motion" means. Cox did not hide the energy source of his clock. It ran on changing atmospheric air pressure. And as long as the Earth and its atmosphere remain, and Cox's clock does not wear out, it will continue to run. So in that respect, Cox's clock is a true perpetual motion machine as defined in Cox's vocabulary.

Bessler said his wheel was turned by the motions of weights. This, assuming it is true, would indicate that it could also continue to run until it wore out.

Where is the line to be drawn? Science says the line for perpetual motion is absolutely no input of energy while the machine puts out at least enough energy to keep itself running. If a gravity powered wheel were found to work, this definition would eliminate the wheel from being a perpetual motion machine, for gravity would be its source of energy. And if Bessler's motion powered wheel were found to work, this scientific definition would eliminate his wheel from being a perpetual motion machine, for it also would have a source of energy. In both cases, current science would say they are impossible without physical proof.

So, as I said, the English language needs a range of words for a "perpetual motion machine", else, every time we say "perpetual motion", we need to say which version of PM we are talking about. I once wrote here on the forum about "classical perpetual motion" as being any machine that is capable of maintaining self-rotation within an enclosure that blocks all tangible forms of energy. Cox's clock would not meet such a definition. Assuming Bessler's wheel was as he claimed, then Bessler's wheel would meet such a definition, at least according to all that we know. It was actually demonstrated to work. The only question is the details of how it worked.

As to a false perpetual motion machine, if it does not work, then it is not a perpetual motion machine. If it does not work then it is only a PM scheme or proposal, and as such I suppose it could be called a false PM machine.

So, as I said, the English language needs a range of words for a "perpetual motion machine", but it does not have that range of words. Pure scientific PM is impossible. Environmental PM like Cox's clock is possible, but we would then need to include windmills and solar panels, which most would not consider to be PM.

What we on this forum are looking for, and which most would label as PM, is a wheel that self-rotates from only the result of physical mechanical movement of weights. This is considered impossible by science, but Bessler's wheel seems to indicate it is possible. Or Bessler was a fraud and both Bessler and Karl were liars. The historical records seem to indicate that Bessler's wheel was a true PM machine as we on this forum would defined a PM wheel. That is, it was self-contained and able to self-rotate for an extended period of time, which according to Bessler would be until the end of time or until it wore out, and which was proven to be at least 2 weeks and 4 weeks, one immediately after the other, for a total of more than 6 weeks.

[primemignonite]

I just love discussions such as these.

Eventually, or so I hope, a final conclusion as to this that or the other vital question will be arrived-at but, if not, then do let the merriment of discovery here continue?

In working hard to keep us all honest, and thus hoeing the straight-and-narrow, Ovyyus now cannily suggests that the following as possible:

"A false perpetual motion machine might be one that is impossibly trying to get something for nothing, in the classical sense of the ages old attempts at gravity/inertia PM. Gravity and/or inertia PM have proven false to date."

To which I now respond by waxing bolder-still and asserting outright that - be one it would!

Once attained, if attained, such a perpetual motion would obviously be one impelled by what likely could be termed an illegitimate energy source - one that is not admitted-to presently by Scientism's mainstream.

("Gustav . . . do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream? It is mediocrity! " - the Schonberg character (Alfred) speaking to the Mahler one (Gustav), from the screen-drama "Death In Venice" of 1971.)

Said supposed energy source if found, well might be some phenomenon accessed from an other realm of existence, rather than from our own boring and mundane one - which is Scientism's sole Nature, where they can in peace worship their comfiting and familiar god.

Given this circumstance, then, such an odd spectacle could likely appear as though energy was being created out of nothing but, in actual truth, the irritating little experience to some would be only of the mere-apparent and so, on account, in actuality be of the real and tangible.

Unlike so many others of our day, I do not dismiss the possibility of any unseen and not knowable outward existence. As to these I am not so bold and besides do not know.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet Act 1, scene 5

James

[primemignonite]

As usual, jim_mich makes good and sharp points, which he presses-home with inimitable, potent conviction.

If I might, I second them all.

It IS a mess and a confusion, this torturing of the definition for P-M!

For my money (which is very little at the moment) I would say if pressed, that any motion desiring to be called one "perpetual", would have to operate for any one of our lifetimes.

If it did (and for obvious cause disregarding the issue of wear), then I would say that that one was perpetual ENOUGH!

Can we not just imagine all of those nasty Smart-Set members out there, reading our various unending discussions on this tattered matter of present, and laughing their shameless Establishment butts right off? (Or, am I just being paranoid and horrid because I so-disfavor them?)

Mightn't some enterprising individual (not me) run a poll on this, and thereby try, at least, to set the answer to the question finally, more-or-less?

(Ah, it brews . . .)

James

[Ed]

No one seems to have a problem with using the term "permanent magnet", even applying it to magnets before rare earths were developed.

First, they have high-jacked the term and changed the definition into something that is impossible. A machine that has no input source whatsoever? No rational person would pursue such a thing.

Second, they don't think that any conservative force can do work either. So if a device was gravity powered (or whatever), that would still not be good enough because it supposedly can't do work?

It could be running right in front of them and it still won't fly... like the proverbial bee.

I say we take back our word and to hell with "them".

We know what we mean by perpetual and what kind of machine we are after, as did most people who pursued it in the past.

Once we have a working device, the tide will turn and we will be in a position to correct the definition.

[primemignonite]

Ed:

Presently, 'they' control the terminology as well as the terms of the debate.

And, on top of that, have their hands upon the ever-raised bar.

Years ago, when I saw the professor's (thankfully now retired) trashy literary "work" done on our supposed "psychology", I knew right then the fight was on, that P-M would be found and, as you alluded-to, matters would be taken back from the magnum-wordy Potsdam physician's haughty successors.

"I say we take back our word and to hell with "them". " - Ed

Well Hallelujah, some backbone appears!

Maybe we are not order-taking, chicken-necked little lemmings after all. Good start.

"Once we have a working device, the tide will turn and we will be in a position to correct the definition." - Ed.

Yes, doubtless this would be so and, I'll second that but, this would be 'cue Mr. Tim stage right' if I ever saw such an invite! To this opinion he may not agree. (He is by an order of magnitude more the cynic than this one could ever be but, I continue to try nevertheless.)

Do let us remember as told by our Founder: "the preponderance principle" and "the principle of excess weight". - Bessler

Keep these in mind securely, and we shall surely prevail come Hell or high water!

"Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!!!" - Admiral Farragut??? (John Paul Jones?)

James

[Grimer]

Thanks to Cloud Camper's invaluable insight into the relevance of the sail-plane example to the generation of energy from the Newtonian Gravity wind, I have been able to make a very significant advance in my understanding of pendulum dynamics.

When studying a pendulum it seems that very little attention is given to the roll of the the pivot/axle. More particularly to the nature of the actions on that axle by the pendulum arm and differences in those actions between short pendulums and longer pendulums.

In fact when looked into in depth it can be seen that it is the difference in those actions, those Jerk actions, that is responsible for the differences in period between short and long pendulums, responsible for the duration of a short pendulum swinging backwards and forwards being less that the duration of a long pendulum swing.

The Jerk actions on a short pendulum are greater in magnitude than the jerk actions on a long pendulum. But the period of a short pendulum is less than the period of a long pendulum.

Now the energy of Jerk action at the pivot is Jerk multiplied by time.

So for a short pendulum we have a large value Jerk variable times a small value time variable.

and for a long pendulum we have a small value Jerk variable times a large value time variable.

But Jerk energy is conserved as are all derivative energies, the high derivatives of heat (d^m.x/dt^m -> d^n.x/dt^n) being an excellent case in point.

So the pendulum is a wonderful example of the conservation of third derivative energy which completes the conservation trinity of velocity, acceleration and jerk energies, the trinity of dynamic energy laws.

It's interesting to note that in the case of static strain energy the trinity is already complete and gives rise to no problems. We have linear strain, area strain and volume strain.
But then statics is much easier to understand than dynamics - which is why it is taught before dynamics in the school curriculum.

I must say I was really surprised (and delighted) to find that something as simple as this could have been missed. Though I was not as surprised as when I discovered the four power laws for the physical properties of water. That really shook me. After all water is by far the most important liquid we have if for no other reason that it makes up 70% of our body mass. Surely, I thought, such fundamental laws should have been discovered before now. Let's hope there are not similar gaps in our understanding of nuclear engineering leading to fatal consequences. Frankly, I'm not optimistic.

[Grimer]

No one seems to have a problem with using the term "permanent magnet", even applying it to magnets before rare earths were developed.

First, they have high-jacked the term and changed the definition into something that is impossible. A machine that has no input source whatsoever? No rational person would pursue such a thing.

Second, they don't think that any conservative force can do work either. So if a device was gravity powered (or whatever), that would still not be good enough because it supposedly can't do work?

It could be running right in front of them and it still won't fly... like the proverbial bee.

I say we take back our word and to hell with "them".

We know what we mean by perpetual and what kind of machine we are after, as did most people who pursued it in the past.

Once we have a working device, the tide will turn and we will be in a position to correct the definition.

Amen to that!

[ovyyus]

First, they have high-jacked the term and changed the definition into something that is impossible. A machine that has no input source whatsoever? No rational person would pursue such a thing.

Not sure if anything was high-jacked or changed, the idea of gravity/inertia perpetual motion was around long before 'they' were born.

The permanently overbalanced wheel IS the long sought perpetual motion machine. Speaking from experience (both personal and observational) those who pursue PM have at least a couple of things in common: a) they have persistently creative mind and hand. b) they do not accept and/or understand the physics of gravity/inertia. Both seem required (with few exceptions) for the PM enthusiast to remain enthusiastic.

[Ed]

The point being that the definition tells us that we are searching for "something for nothing" instead of what we all know we are looking for.

[rlortie]

those who pursue PM have at least a couple of things in common: a)they have persistently creative mind and hand. b) they do not accept and/or understand the physics of gravity/inertia.

You got that right!

I accept that which is taught as, and /or the understanding of gravity/inertia. I also accept the objective use of how and where utilization of gravity/inertia is already exploited. Is it to its end of scientific advancement, I do not believe so! The "perpetualist" seeks to utilize it more fully or advantageously, irregardless if those calling it "conservative"

Man has sailed the oceans utilizing gravitational air mass employing winds to traverse oceans. yet he calls it "conservative".

Man has utilized gravity to fly by varying air mass, a property of gravity, yet he calls it "conservative".

Man has built and utilized gravity induced energy in hydro-electric projects, Tidal turbines, and wind generators, sail boats, roller-coasters and airplanes, all based on gravitational influence yet he calls it "conservative".

Need I go on?

We have learned to use (utilize) gravity in the above examples, our present drawback is not mans written laws, but rather "utilization", placing such laws into farther doubt! How far must we go before "they" admit that gravity is not totally conservative?

Waves from the ocean or lake (Molecular weight) washing (swinging) upon the shore, reach a higher level than their static state seeks. Is it not inertia that creates this phenomenon?

Ralph

[Ed]

Gasoline in a tank is conservative, so I don't know why we get hung up on all this...

[ovyyus]

The point being that the definition tells us that we are searching for "something for nothing" instead of what we all know we are looking for.

Yes, the definition is also a description of gravity/inertia. The empirical evidence indicates that gravity/inertia is not an energy source (beyond its capacity to store energy first put into it). To believe otherwise is a matter of faith, not understanding.

Need I go on?

No. You proved that (b is true.

[rlortie]

B. they do not accept and/or understand the physics of gravity/inertia.

(B is true.)

I need not go on as it is a double edged sword! Works for both, those that believe in excepted physics put into play during the 1700's, and those who believe there is room for improvement.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Ralph, empirical evidence does not require your personal belief. That is the point of it.

[Ed]

To believe otherwise is a matter of faith, not understanding.

No, it's a matter of perspective.