Ectropy and Maxwell's Demon.

[jim_mich]

JM is always claiming that CF is nonlinear as rpm's increase, so therefore must be nonconservative. Jim has conveniently forgotten that CP is also nonlinear and builds just as fast as CF so the difference between CF and CP is always zero in any rotating system, leaving no residual force to power anything.

I'll call it like I see it. This is an idiot statement. (Note that I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm saying the statement is idiotic.) In all cases of mechanics, if one force equals another force, the two forces cancel out and you get no work done.

In the case of CF, if the CP is caused to become less, then the weight moves, and work in done by the momentum of the weight.

Therefore, claiming that CF cannot do work because CP is equal is an idiot statement.

Another idiot statement is that CF cannot power anything because it always acts at 90 degrees to the desired rotation.

I'll let cloud camper figure out why this is also an idiot statement. Let's see how smart is cloud camper.

[cloud camper]

Jim - you have already screwed the pooch by claiming you believe in the first law but then claim that by removing the energy "quickly", we somehow create new energy to keep the system going.

There is no concept ever defined or taught about "useable energy" in Physics. This is a total fantasy.

This shows you have no idea what you're talking about and can demonstrate no physical principles by which this could happen.

You have provided no mechanism by which this occurs. So you really don't believe in the first law as it applies to rotating systems.

Sure we can do some fun science tricks by compressing springs with CF inside a rotating system or pull strings that lift a weight outside the wheel.

But all these effects require more work to be input to produce the result. No exceptions to the first law have EVER been found within a single rotating system. There is no controversy anywhere in physics about how the first law applies to CF/CP and rotating systems so you really have a tough row to hoe.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

JB showed he had the inside track on the first law by displaying impacts in MT 138. You have shown no such understanding.

So instead of your constant uninformed rants and tirades why not just complete your Proof of Concept and prove everybody wrong?

[jim_mich]

So instead of your constant uninformed rants and tirades why don't you just complete your Proof of Concept and prove everybody wrong?

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

There is no concept ever defined or taught about "useable energy" in Physics. This is a total fantasy.

So you're ignorant and have never learned about ectropy?

In thermodynamics, ectropy is a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized. Ectropy, in a loose sense, can be thought of as the opposite of entropy. Ectropy is minus entropy. That is, instead of saying "lose entropy" you can say "gain ectropy", instead of saying "gain entropy" you can say "lose ectropy".

The term was introduced in the late 20th century by mathematician and philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine and is often more intuitive than its counterpart. The term's merit is that in order to understand a concept, it can be useful to look at it from the other side. Sloppily speaking, ectropy signifies order; slightly more exactly, usable energy. Actually, what we call energy is often ectropy.

The Earth, for example, gets electromagnetic waves from the sun and sends electromagnetic waves back into space, but the incoming waves have shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) and therefore more ectropy. So the Earth's ectropy is increased by the sun. When we eat, we take in ectropy from the food.

For any perpetual motion wheel to work, the wheel needs to increase its ectropy. In other words, it needs to increase the usable harnessable energy within the device.

You might want to look into the origin of what you keep calling the 1st Law. The full name is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It pertains to the conversion of heat to work and work to heat. About 300 years ago, during Bessler's time, physics people made an assumption that perpetual motion was impossible. About 100 years ago physics people perpetuated that assumption and incorporated it into the new Thermodynamic Laws. You have been taught Conservation of Energy. There is no such law. There is is the First Law of Thermodynamics that says energy is conserved when converted from heat to work and from work to heat, and in similar thermal to dynamic situations. The Thermodynamics Laws are not motion laws.

There is no Conservation of Kinetic Energy Law. The laws which govern kinetic energy and kinetic motion are Newton's Laws of Motion. Newton's Laws follow conservation of motion and not conservation of energy. There is a difference.

[eccentrically1]

Wow, Jim. That ain't right. But I've argued this before. Old ground, maybe I'll try to explain again later.

[cloud camper]

Jim - you're talking in circles (pun intended).

You can verbally demonstrate no mechanism using any standard physics terminology that show how CF/CP could increase the total energy of a rotating system.

Entropy is not a measure of total energy, it is the measure of the state of disorder of a system. You can confuse the issue if you like by calling it negative ectropy but nothing is changed.

It is physically impossible by any known principles to increase energy using CF/CP within a single rotating system.

I can confidently state that you have no such operating device that uses CF/CP as it's power source. Can't happen. You're in fantasyland.

[rlortie]

Jim,

If you dig a little deeper into the same source you quoted above, You will find that Danial Bernoulli and Leonard Euler did not accept Newtons laws of motion. They leave us with an assumption.

It is my belief that due to the Royal Society, and the peer standards of the time, they did not wish to upset the apple cart and possibly endanger their own standing within the starched fop acceptance of Newtons laws.

To fully understand, one must step back one generation to Danial's father
Johann Bernoulli (27 July 1667 – 1 January 1748; also known as Jean or John) educated not only his son but Leonhard Euler in his youth.

Johann Bernoulli was a As a student of Leibniz’s calculus, Johann Bernoulli sided with him in 1713 in the Newton–Leibniz debate over who deserved credit for the discovery of calculus. Johann Bernoulli defended Leibniz by showing that he had solved certain problems with his methods that Newton had failed to solve. However, due to his opposition to Newton and the study that vortex theory over Newton’s theory of gravitation which ultimately delayed acceptance of Newton’s theory in continental Europe.

This delay obviously shows there was contention between Johann Bernoulli and Newton, carried over to his son Michael and student Leonhard Euler.

To dig deeper one must go into fluid mechanics and dynamics, approach it with motion of molecular mass as weight in mind. here you will find the "assumption" that boldly states it is assumed to abide to Newtons laws of motion. This will bring you up to Kenrick's disquisition. and his filing of a patent only to die three weeks after submitting it.

I am willing to bet that kenrick's design was based on Newtonian fluids used as weight on a molecular level. Using Cf to form a vortex with the cohesive properties as explained in Tesla's turbine design.

Such a machine would be hermetically sealed, operating on ectropy supplied by outside gravity.

Ralph

[pequaide]

You can have no centrifugal force (CF) unless there is a centripetal force (CP).  In a circle the acceleration is zero and the radius is uniform. The CF is provided by the moving mass and CF and CP are by definition equal and opposite. The path of the mass is tangent. The previously existing motion of the mass will place a CF on the perpendicular string and if the point of rotation is strong enough to counter with a CP then the mass will travel in a circle. It is also noted that the point of rotation has a force upon it; the CF. It is really the same force as viewed from different locations.  Or you could say that it is two forces that are equal and opposite; but any way you look at it they are equal; the term zero for the total forces is not inappropriate.

To accelerate the mass you must have a CP that is greater than the CF. CF cannot start the acceleration because the CF is determined by the preexisting motion of the mass. You must place extra CP in the string to accelerate the mass.  But this extra CP will brings the rotating mass into a smaller circle and a different CF. Now we no longer have forces that are equal and balanced. I suspect that these are the forces of which JM speaks.

Some would argue that the CP can never be greater than the CF; well okay but the fact remains that there is a greater force in the CP direction than in the CF direction.

Centrifugal trebuchets have significant CF and CP and they are not balanced.

As far as Jim's notes on the history of Physics. It seems he has that correct too. The great debate of the age was mv (Newton) versus mv² (Leibniz), and it was by no means decided in Bessler's time.. If my memory serves me correctly the Law of Conservation of Energy was attributed to a medical doctor that was researching blood and animal heat 1842. Julius Mayer: In 1848 he calculated that in the absence of a source of energy the Sun would cool down in only 5000 years, and he suggested that the impact of meteorites kept it hot. And Joule; the mechanical eqivalent of heat.

[rlortie]

Pequaide,

As to which of Jim's notes are you referring to when you state:

As far as Jim's notes on the history of Physics. It seems he has that correct too. The great debate of the age was mv (Newton) versus mv² (Leibniz), and it was by no means decided in Bessler's time..

If you are referencing the above post, that is not Jim's. I have spent a lot of time digging up related material and only ask that credit be given when and where due.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Pequaide wrote:

You must place extra CP in the string to accelerate the mass. But this extra CP will brings the rotating mass into a smaller circle and a different CF.

I do not know where you get this info, but it is my belief that Cp is a fixed physical property acting to retain a mass in a circular orbit. It is not a force that you can vary at will, making a string or rope larger or increasing the thickness of a wheel rim has no effect on Cf.

Some would argue that the CP can never be greater than the CF; well okay but the fact remains that there is a greater force in the CP direction than in the CF direction

Is this some sort of joke? Cp is a physical barrier and obviously stronger than Cf other wise you have neither. There is no force in the Cp direction, its like pushing on a wall that will not move. You have exerted force but the wall could care less as it is not pushing back.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

It has crossed my mind but until now the thought was discounted as wishful thinking.

IMO, Bessler's wheel was powered by one of 4 methods.

Gravity: I have discounted gravity for obvious reasons.

Inertia: I had discounted inertia for similar obvious reasons.

Environment: After many years of researching methods to harness available environmental energy my conclusion is that it's not feasible to replicate Bessler's wheel this way due to the limitations imposed by the demonstration settings.

Fraud: After much research and development I have managed to find a way to replicate Bessler's demonstrations, including his long duration test. I have constructed several proofs of principle. This can be done using only materials and construction techniques available to Bessler, combined with some very astute observations and clever thinking. I even sometimes think that Bessler's 18th century perspective may have given him enough wiggle room to claim it as a legitimate solution to the ages-old problem of the perpetually overbalanced wheel. But certainly by todays standard it would be categorized as fraud.

So there it is, my obsession is surely cured. Yet here I am still wanting to believe in 'true PM' :D

Jim, you said some time ago that if Bessler's wheel was not powered by gravity and it was not a fraud then only inertia is left. I'm prepared to temporarily suspend my disbelief, in large part because in all the years I've been associated with you I can't recall a single instance where you have ever intentionally mislead or lied.

[rlortie]

Ovyyus wrote: I'm prepared to temporarily suspend my disbelief, in large part because in all the years I've been associated with you I can't recall a single instance where you have ever intentionally mislead or lied.

Unfortunately, I am a little apprehensive excepting this. It was just earlier, within a week that Jim made a post stating, he had not started a build yet as his divorce was not finalized.

If he indeed has a runner, it has either materialized within the last few days or Jim has posted misleading information. No intent to flame him, but somewhere there is either miscommunication or reasonable doubt.

I prefer his "just maybe" needs to be taken as implied.

Ralph

[pequaide]

What if it is not a wall? Note the hammer throw.

[Furcurequs]

Ovyyus wrote: I'm prepared to temporarily suspend my disbelief, in large part because in all the years I've been associated with you I can't recall a single instance where you have ever intentionally mislead or lied.

Unfortunately, I am a little apprehensive excepting this. It was just earlier, within a week that Jim made a post stating, he had not started a build yet as his divorce was not finalized.

If he indeed has a runner, it has either materialized within the last few days or Jim has posted misleading information. No intent to flame him, but somewhere there is either miscommunication or reasonable doubt.

I prefer his "just maybe" needs to be taken as implied.

Ralph

Ralph,

If we are thinking about the same post, it seems like less than a week ago to me, too! ...but I searched for it and, again if we are thinking about the same one, then it was posted exactly a MONTH ago today! That's kind of scary, isn't it?

Anyway, in that post to which we both responded, Jim said it had been three years since he built his last wheel and that he was starting to build again.

So, he's had a month! ...to build something and get it working.

Wait! It sounds like you may be remembering a post from longer than a month ago.

Anyway, here's the link to the post I was speaking of:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 588#107588

Dwayne

[rlortie]

Dwayne,

Yes that is the post, and yes it is scary to realize it has been a month to the day! To engrossed in my own priorities to see how time slips away.

I would have been willing to bet that it was not any older than say 10 days. So yes Jim has had time to get his act together.

Jim,

So if an apology is due please except this, I bear the burden.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

JM claims his device is identical to the original Bessler Wheel.

But Jim's device does not match Bessler's clues in any significant way.
The only Bessler clues that Jim seems to have incorporated is pairs of weights and weights trading positions.

But all other clues must be severely twisted or ignored to match Jim's device.

JB provided multiple clear clues that describe how the weights must fall and then rise again.

“A constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficient weight.� GB 52
“Imagine how a heavy material body, in defiance of its innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth, could be induced to rise once more.� GB 52
“The continual interchange of rise and fall in all of its parts.� GB 56
“I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the ‘excess’ weight is caused to rise." AP 343
“lightly cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!� AP 291

Jim says he does not use rising/falling weights and claims all these rising/falling clues are simply JB requoting Wagner’s false ideas and therefore is not required to use rising/falling weights to match JB's wheel.

JB was clearly impressed with the “peacock’s tail� effect, stating that the effect caused the device to spread in "length and breadth�.

Jim never describes this effect in his device.

JB describes how his device appears "full then empty" during operation. This is clearly a mechanical oscillation effect that should be entirely evident and extremely visual.

Jim never describes this visual oscillation effect.

JB’s device was audibly detected by multiple witnesses to evidence approximately eight impacts per wheel revolution.

Jim says he only uses two weights.

JB’s device was audibly very loud, operating with “great force and noise�. Also with banging, clattering, and scratching noises. JB said the "clattering noise is a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else�. AP 339

Also “motive force from the noisy weights.� AP 339

Jim describes no audible effects with his device.

JB clearly used impacts in his device as shown by MT138.

Jim has discussed impacts but has not described the use of impacts in his device.

JB said the main power stroke occurs “When they (the weights) come to be placed together, and are so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, one or another of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move.� PMV 103 of DT 20

Jim has stated he does not understand this clue so obviously does not match any function in his device.



Jim is clearly distorting and/or ignoring the clues to try and match his device. Whatever Jim thinks he has, it clearly does NOT represent the original Bessler mechanism.

This argument has no bearing on whether Jim's device actually operates, which is a totally separate issue.