The application of Bessler’s Physics to Bessler’s problem!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Ovyyus
Thanks for the link it was most interesting, I did not realize just how great the friction losses was in tidal movement, and how much heat energy is converted!

To all, taking the argument back to basics, for gravity to be a conservative force it puts in Zero energy into planetary movements and the only energy input is the planet motive force any energy used to create tides come from the motive force, and gravity does Zero work on the tides, this is the Known Physics stand point,and the view taken by sceptics!

My argument is that the winding down of Orbits should have been a lot quicker if gravity was not doing work on planetary movements.

So I gave the Earths and Moons tidal relationship as a example!

I suggest to the reader that they should read all the links posted by Daxwc, and Ovyyus, and then form their opinion!

Regards, Trevor

[rlortie]

Ok, Bill,

I have achieved two goals, a good nights sleep without wheels keeping me awake half the night, and installed my belated parts that created the need for another tear down.

I am now ready to pickup the debate in defense of Trevor, myself and "gravitaionalists" in general.

You wrote: "Gravity is conservative because it is proven so, not the other way around."

In history we find a lot of quotes and statements of things believed that man would never be capable of achieving. It is obvious that these statements became well noted because they were eventually proven false.

If Gravity is truly 100 % conservative, can you show or direct me to objective proof? All I can find is; Newton said so, and to date no one has proven otherwise.

I presume that Newton put his pants on one leg at a time, just as I do. And like any other humans;

"To err is human; to forgive, divine." quote by Alexander Pope Nationality: English Born: May 21, 1688 Died: May 30, 1744. I wonder what could have influenced him to make such a quote, the time period looks familiar.

I admit that Newton was a smart man and became president of the Royal Society, in that position he carried a lot of weight and few would openly question him. The only record of any debate or dispute I am aware of was by Leibniz, and Johann Bernoulli. History states that this confrontation held up the acceptance of Newtons Principia in Europe for a number of years.

After its acceptance other mathematicians, philosophers, etc... were coursed to abide with Newtons work, protecting their peer status which was highly regarded in that era.

My search has found two famous mathematicians who did not agree, and/or questioned parts of Newtons laws. They are Danial Bernoulli, son of Johann and student Leonhard Euler. Once again due to peer status they did not make waves over their mathematical findings.

In modern text books and Wikipedia regarding fluid mechanics you will find this closing statement:

In context for brevity, underlining and bold other than title are mine.

Assumptions

Balance for some integrated fluid quantity in a control volume enclosed by a control surface.

Like any mathematical model of the real world, fluid mechanics makes some basic assumptions about the materials being studied. These assumptions are turned into equations that must be satisfied if the assumptions are to be held true.

For example, consider a fluid in three dimensions. The assumption that mass is conserved means that for any fixed control volume (for example a sphere) – enclosed by a control surface – the rate of change of the mass contained is equal to the rate at which mass is passing from outside to inside through the surface, minus the rate at which mass is passing the other way, from inside to outside. (A special case would be when the mass inside and the mass outside remain constant). This can be turned into an equation in integral form over the control volume.[1]

Fluid mechanics assumes that every fluid obeys the following:

Conservation of mass
Conservation of energy
Conservation of momentum
The continuum hypothesis, detailed below.

It is my belief that the terms: "Assume" and "Hypothesis" does not equate to objective proof!

Ralph

[Ed]

This old story? If I had a nickel...

From Experimental proof of OU?

Ever heard of gravity assit(-ence in launching space craft)? Well, it is well known that to save money on space craft one can give a space craft the appropriate velocity at the appropriate time so that it will fall toward the heavenly bodies and end up farther from that body than it started. This means that with tiny energy input one can achieve huge increases in gravitational potential energy! Do you know how much rocket fuel that would have taken had they not used gravity assit?! And yet these same scientists call gravity a conservative force field!

Conservation of momentum is maintained between spacecraft and planet. It is a perfectly balanced energy dance with gravity as the 'string'.

Ah, I see. But technically, it is overunity: to be so energy out must be greater than energy in, O>I or O/I>1. Since you put almost no energy in, and because the energy out is furnished freely from the body and not you, the technique has almost limitless COP. I did not claim that energy was created, I claimed that it was free, and in fact we didn't pay for it.

They are both right. Momentum is being taken from the planet AND the spacecraft got a free ride. It IS a matter of perspective... which I supposed, but Bill denied it, though I'll remind him now to harness the planet at the front. :-)

[Ed]

I have achieved two goals, a good nights sleep without wheels keeping me awake half the night, and installed my belated parts that created the need for another tear down.

Oh, good! You got your defibrillator replaced.

Gravity IS conservative AND conservative forces CAN be harnessed to do work! We do it all the time.

The trick is not to screw the environment with our output, and not using up all the potential input. We don't want to leave a mess in some little green man's back yard or use up all his momentum without permission!

Now let's get back to building and put Ticker back to what she does best...damning all the minutia and semantics. :-)

[rlortie]

Ed,

No Defibrillator replacement yet! Received confirmation yesterday, I am due in Bend Oregon (232 miles from home) on Tuesday April 23, for the big event.

I hope to have my design ready for a dry-run test before turning off the lights.

Ralph

Edit: Wrong millage stated.

[Ed]

No pressure! Or, maybe with this design, you do want pressure. :-)

But I do hope all goes well for you with both things.

[rlortie]

Ed,

No pressure in design or on me, I am taking a lot of breaks while I think each step through. What I don't need is a screw up by being over zealous. Believe I conquered euphoria years ago, so no problem there.

I am maintaining an attitude like the old comic character "Droopy" a black and white beagle who at the end of each strip would close with a sad forlorn expression saying "I'm happy".

I Feel confident that whether it sustains or not, it will give a new approach to the old problem, molecular mass, rather than estimated four pound weights.

I just completed a 'pick' by hoisting it up and setting it and supports on a roll-away platform, now ready for alignment and bolting.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

It IS a matter of perspective... which I supposed, but Bill denied it, though I'll remind him now to harness the planet at the front. :-)

Not sure what you think I denied? It is a perfectly balanced energy dance, where momentum gained by one balances momentum given up by the other. If gravity was capable of injecting additional energy into the transaction then it wouldn't be balanced.

Ed, what's your perspective on the matter?

[ovyyus]

If Gravity is truly 100 % conservative, can you show or direct me to objective proof? All I can find is; Newton said so, and to date no one has proven otherwise.

It's not just a matter of Newtons say so. Every experiment and demonstration to date shows the conservative nature of gravity. Perhaps you know of a demonstration that shows otherwise?

Ralph, your argument is that gravity can not be proved conservative because we have yet to find gravity acting non conservatively. Isn't that like saying pigs can fly because we have yet to find a flying pig?

[ovyyus]

My argument is that the winding down of Orbits should have been a lot quicker if gravity was not doing work on planetary movements.

That's not an argument, that's an opinion based on a feeling.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi All,

When looking at just the Earth and the Orbit of the Moon and then just looking at the moon derived tides, on the Earth, there is a massive amount of energy lost to friction due to the mass movement of fluid, gravity is doing zero work thus zero energy input. Thus the theft of tidal energy can only come from the motive force of the moon, and the motive force of the spin of the earth, thus the local tides of the earth and moon has be moving billion of tons of fluid weight per day everyday for over 4 billion years, the only work input comes from the moons motive force and the earths spin motive force, this is the known Physics understanding!

I do not claim to be the best mathematician but to me it does not add up!
As Known Physic is responsible for, Gravity is a conservative force, the burden of proof is on the people who state this, so I ask these people where are the sums that prove absolutely that the loss in the Earths Spin and the loss of Moons Orbit motive force is equal or less than the Generated kinetic energy gained from moving billions of tons of fluid, and the friction losses of this movement to heat.

Is it possible to steal more energy out of a system than what has been put in?

So why is the Earth still spinning and the Moon still Orbiting?


Regards Trevor

[Ed]

Not sure what you think I denied? It is a perfectly balanced energy dance, where momentum gained by one balances momentum given up by the other. If gravity was capable of injecting additional energy into the transaction then it wouldn't be balanced.

Ed, what's your perspective on the matter?

Nobody's talking about injecting any energy (at least not me or Jonathan)... just harnessing what's there for the taking. Superman may just get pissed enough to replenish it.

The fuel in a tank may be dissipative, but the potential is conservative, no different than the weights of a grandfather clock. Both run out of potential. If I decide to lift the weights back up, then the clock can run again and I've restored it's potential... stored a force. If choose to not want to be stranded, I can put more fuel into the tank of my car, which now has re-stored potential. The injector meters out fuel like the escapement meters out gravity.

The potential for either is non-conservative, but the weights and my desire to tell time don't disappear, nor does the fuel tank and my will to not be stranded. That's where perspective comes in.

[ovyyus]

Trevor..... here I've done it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

Dissipation

Earth's tidal oscillations introduce dissipation at an average rate of about 3.75 terawatt.[31] About 98% of this dissipation is by marine tidal movement.[32] Dissipation arises as basin-scale tidal flows drive smaller-scale flows which experience turbulent dissipation. This tidal drag creates torque on the moon that gradually transfers angular momentum to its orbit, and a gradual increase in Earth–moon separation. The equal and opposite torque on the Earth correspondingly decreases its rotational velocity. Thus, over geologic time, the moon recedes from the Earth, at about 3.8 centimetres (1.5 in)/year, lengthening the terrestrial day.[33] Day length has increased by about 2 hours in the last 600 million years. Assuming (as a crude approximation) that the deceleration rate has been constant, this would imply that 70 million years ago, day length was on the order of 1% shorter with about 4 more days per year.

[rlortie]

Sorry Ed but Ticker is back to what she does best...damning all the minutia and semantics. :-)

Ovyyus wrote:
"It's not just a matter of Newtons say so. Every experiment and demonstration to date shows the conservative nature of gravity. Perhaps you know of a demonstration that shows otherwise?"

I thought through gravity and motion making for tides at both earth and moons expense we had concluded that not all is conservative. The price is paid. is this any difference than burning gasoline which is considered not conservative. Do you not agree with your own statement:

Not sure what you think I denied? It is a perfectly balanced energy dance, where momentum gained by one balances momentum given up by the other.

I think you will find little denial that a gravity driven device producing momentum is not going to run without effecting a change of properties in the system somewhere some how.

IMO my belief that gravity is not in the true sense totally conservative is founded on that which we have already concluded and confirmed by your above statement.

I do not see the connection with flying pigs and hope they never do, I am a great lover of bacon!

Ralph

[ovyyus]

The potential for either is non-conservative, but the weights and my desire to tell time don't disappear, nor does the fuel tank and my will to not be stranded. That's where perspective comes in.

I see. But that does not seem to address the 'is gravity conservative' problem. I guess you could send up another spacecraft and perform a reverse slingshot fly-by in an effort to re-fuel the planetary momentum tank, but that seems just silly :D