First Law Discussion

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

First Law Discussion

Post by jim_mich »

justsomeone, in [url=http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114192#114192]this thread[/url] wrote:Can we take this conservation over to another thread?

In the future it will be difficult to find this content in this thread.
Cloud camper keeps mentioning the "1st law". I don't think cloud camper even understands the meaning of the words he is using.

The First Law is usually considered to be Newton's First Law of Motion which states, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." And of course there is the Second Law of Motion that concerns acceleration of a body, and the Third Law of Motion that concerns equal and opposite forces.

But it seems that the "1st law" that you keep mentioning has a longer name. It is called the First Law of Thermodynamics. It has this longer name for good reason. The First Law of Thermodynamics is concerned with the conversion of energy from one form to another. This law states that when energy is converted from form to form, there is no spontaneous gain or loss of energy. Thus when converted back to its first form, the amount of energy remains the same, when losses of friction and such are accounted for. The First Law of Thermodynamics basically relates to heat engines and similar situations. It is not an all-inclusive law.

The second Law of Thermodynamics also relates to heat engines and says that the internal entropy always increases, thus the usable energy within the system always decreases. This is because heat is the source of the energy. And as the heat differential is used up, the usable energy of the system is also used up. This is a prime reason why PM is considered as impossible. The assumption is that conversion of heat to motion is the only method of producing work, (You can argue this fact, but all harnessable forces trace back to pressure caused by heat.)

Probably what cloud camper meant to write is the Conservation of Energy Law which states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change — it is said to be conserved over time. This law says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form; for instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy and heat energy to kinetic energy.

The Conservation of Energy Law is based upon the belief that perpetual motion is impossible. It tries to use the First Law of Thermodynamics as proof. James Clerk Maxwell showed why such concepts of are not valid. His Demon shows that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a certainty. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically probable.

If you have a way of separating, sorting, or manipulating kinetic motion so as to condense it from one material into another material, then you have increased the amount of usable energy without increasing the total energy. Such a process would not break any of the previously mentioned laws. One must understand the limits of each of these laws.

If a PM wheel gains usable energy without gaining total energy then no laws are broken. If the usable energy is then used to cause increased wheel rotation, again no laws are broken. These are two separate processes, one follows the other which then increases the first.

The scientific word that means "usable energy" is ectropy, which is basically the opposite on entropy. Because this is an obscure seldom used word, you will have seen me using the phrase "usable energy", though cloud camper seemed to not even understand such simple words.


Image
Last edited by jim_mich on Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

I always imagine maxwells demon looks like the sorting hat from harry potter.
"You wont find a smarter hat than me!"

If a pm wheel gains usable energy, it becomes more efficient. If it used all of its usable energy, it would be 100% efficient.
How much usable energy does a wheel and axle with weights have?
Apparently an unlimited amount.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

A true perpetual motion wheel would have unlimited energy, but would have limited energy per unit of time.


Image
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

That's interesting, unlimited but limited.

I'll have to think about that for a minute.
ruggerodk
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:02 am
Location: Scandinavia

re: First Law Discussion

Post by ruggerodk »

@E1:
Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum
Provided by Al Bacon
Translation by Ted of Chicago:
As long as it (i.e. The Upper Weight) remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.
Bessler's german words
Sondern es sind diese Gewichte selbst das Perpetuum Mobile, oder parte essentiales & constitutivæ desselben / welche ihre vom Motu universi bekommene vim & nifum progrediendi in ihren selbst haben und unendlich exerciren müssen (so lange sie nemlich ausser dem Centro gravium bleiben) nachdem sie in ein solches Gehäuse (i.e. housing, case, casing, shell, cabinet, box) oder Gerüste (i.e. scaffolding) eingeslossen / und gegen einander coordiniret worden / das sie nicht nur vor sich nimmermehr ein Æquilibrium oder Punctum quietis erreichen / sondern dasselbe ohnaushörlich suchen / und anbey (i.e. merely how) in inher Bewunderns-würdigen schnellen Flucht / nach Proportion sowo(h)l eigener als ihres Gehäuses Grösse / noch andere von aussen an die Welle oder Axin ihres Vorticis Verticalis applicirte Lasten / mit bewegen und treiben müssen.
Total energy depends on: Gravity/Time (unlimited), Proportion of Weight and Size of Housing (limited).

Regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
User avatar
Gregory
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Europe

re: First Law Discussion

Post by Gregory »

To add a few more possibly useful thoughts here…

Temperature differential can be used to drive a Sterling engine.
Electrical potential difference can be used to drive an electric motor.
Pressure difference can be used to operate a high pressure / compressed air motor.
Changes in air pressure and temperature can be used to operate Cox’s clock and Atmos clock.
Changing water level (ocean wave) in a tube filled half air half water can propel a small turbine.
Speed difference of molecules of air or water compared to a stationary device spins up a windmill or water mill. In this case the Sun is responsible to restore the water for the river to keep flowing down, and heat the atmosphere to keep up with the wind.

We could add here differences in magnetic field orientation, difference of light intensity, or anything, etc. The point is that any differential in nature can be used to operate an engine designed to harness that differential. As long as the differential present and restored the engine can operate further.

So what happens when we choose difference of speed of moving masses to drive a... „motion engine�? Is that silly? According to definition that should have to be just as legitimate as temperature difference for example. So long as the differential can be maintained the engine can operate. It is far an exotic idea, possibly even mad, but in definition it is the same as the other examples.

In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon was intended to continuously restore and keep up the differential, so a heat engine can run indefinitely. However as yet there is no such thing today which could perform like the demon imagined by Maxwell.

So, in conclusion for a theoretical motion engine concept to be possibly workable one would need a mechanism where the differential occurs and re-occurs automaticly and this is the very nature of the movements & mechanisms involved.
unstable
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Pavia Italy

re: First Law Discussion

Post by unstable »

Hi Gregory, I totally agree with what you wrote; differential is the key.
What is not present in the force of gravity is just the differential. The whole body (the wheel and weights in it) is subject to the same force field.
I think we all (with the various configurations of the weights inside the wheel) are trying to create a differential

Claudio
User avatar
murilo
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:49 pm
Location: sp - brazil
Contact:

Post by murilo »

eccentrically1 wrote:That's interesting, unlimited but limited.

I'll have to think about that for a minute.
ECC,
come on!
That minute is already over...
You may not want to kill, but maybe just screw...
TC!
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: First Law Discussion

Post by eccentrically1 »

Sorry murilo. It's a phrase not meant to be taken literally.

Unlimited energy. What does that mean? I would say it meant a true perpetual motion wheel would have to generate a positive feedback loop; it would never lose any energy.
That's what the thermodynamic law means; nothing is truly isolated from its environment; any mechanical or heat process loses energy to its environment. even if you were able to capture all of the energy lost in a mechanical process - which you can't - and somehow re-use that to fuel your ugly baby, you would still only have a wheel that could turn itself; it would be truly isolated, and you couldn't extract work from it.
Limited energy per unit of time. What does that mean? Power, I reckon. Energy consumed per unit of time. But if a true perpetual motion wheel never lost energy, or created enough kinetic energy to replace the energy it consumed and lost and also created enough KE to carry a load, then doesn't it follow that it would have unlimited power?
Can the kinetic energy of mass be tapped without loss, and spontaneously create more kinetic energy to move other things besides its own mass, without loss?
I can't think of any examples right now. I 'll have to think another minute.


Eccentric1
User avatar
murilo
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:49 pm
Location: sp - brazil
Contact:

re: First Law Discussion

Post by murilo »

ecc,
I can't wait:
we just need an enough and active potential!
Nothing else but a good design!
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

eccentrically1 wrote:But if a true perpetual motion wheel never lost energy, or created enough kinetic energy to replace the energy it consumed and lost and also created enough KE to carry a load, then doesn't it follow that it would have unlimited power?
No.

Power is often measured as horsepower. Your car has limited horsepower. At any given time it can do only so much work. It can only push itself so fast.

But if it ran on hydrogen replenished by a solar panel electrolyzing rain water, then it could do that work until the sun stops shining and rain stop falling. For all practical purposes, perpetually.

It would have limited power for (almost) unlimited time.


Image
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: First Law Discussion

Post by rlortie »

eccent wrote:
But if a true perpetual motion wheel never lost energy, or created enough kinetic energy to replace the energy it consumed and lost and also created enough KE to carry a load, then doesn't it follow that it would have unlimited power?
IMO its power would not be unlimited, limitations would be reached not unlike any form of mechanical device for producing work.

First is maximum operable RPM, how fast can it turn before limited by Cf or disintegrating.

Second, how much OB mass it can build at the most advantageous point. .

Third, maximum working torque acquired through leveraged mass and potential to build kinetic energy.

Not unlike any form of internal/external combustion engine and electric motors, output can be measured either by dynamo or Prony brake.

The exceptions that may or may not apply is the fact that a steam engine and electric motors exhibit maximum torque at zero RPM. A gravity driven machine may also show the same results by measuring static torque at zero RPM. I however believe that inertia will create more usable torque when in motion.

Ralph
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

jim_mich wrote:A true perpetual motion wheel would have unlimited energy, but would have limited energy per unit of time.

It would have limited power for (almost) unlimited time.


Image
So unlimited kinetic energy that it self-creates, controls, and uses to torque itself - but limited power (it would consume some amount of its own kinetic energy but have the rest available for moving other things connected to it) for almost unlimited time.
I still can't think of any examples yet.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

eccentrically1 wrote:I still can't think of any examples yet.
Try looking at the top left corner of this web-page. The guy with the long curly hair that sticks his tongue out at you every few minutes. If we can believe what he wrote, his wheel could lift a limited amount of weight (water, hammer mill, etc.) as often and for as long as the materials of the machine would last.


Image
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: First Law Discussion

Post by eccentrically1 »

jim wrote:If you have a way of separating, sorting, or manipulating kinetic motion so as to condense it from one material into another material, then you have increased the amount of usable energy without increasing the total energy. Such a process would not break any of the previously mentioned laws. One must understand the limits of each of these laws.
If, yes.
Manipulating kinetic energy condenses it? What does that mean? Isn't condensing something making it smaller, more dense? Change gas to liquid?

If besslers wheel did what i summarised in my last post, and if we can believe what he wrote, then that would be a good example.
Can you think of any other examples?
Post Reply