Forget it

[justsomeone]

Jim, Inertia = Momentum? I expected you to answer this with a no.

[jim_mich]

Inertia is the resistance to acceleration. Momentum is the resistance to deceleration. In the English language, stationary objects are usually considered to have inertia, which must be overcome when the object is moved. And moving objects are usually considered to have momentum that keeps them moving. In reality, they are the same characteristic of mass, and are defined by Newtons First Law of Motion.

[daxwc]

Ralph:

To all who have stated that something is impossible or an impossibility, I question: What the hell are you doing on this forum?

Come on Ralph, there is still the mystery of how Bessler deceived everybody even if he was a fraud and those people should be able to comment too, especially when they have real physics to back up their arguments. This is no different than demanding people only look in a certain area of principles of Gravity, CF or anything else. All people should have the freedom to express their views without pressure from those with different concepts, because since they all defy science as it is known right now.

[justsomeone]

I still don't know if that is a yes or no.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

You, as in the past have a way of twisting ones meaning to exploit your desired beliefs!

I do not stick my fingers in my ears and say "No no no'! no more than you will see me use the terms; "Can't or that's "Impossible"... I did not literally stop reading, I just speed read the rest of your letter, taking little indulgence in it.

OK! momentum and inertia are constants, so is the property of "Moment" on a bridge span. I fail to see the significance within a gravity bound environment. If gravity is not a requirement for causing wheel rotation, then where and how is the action-reaction going to initiate from. And yes I realize that rockets push against themselves, but they have fuel to initiate the process, your wheel as you have explained does not have this attribute.

I may have missed the translation and usage for "Lazy fat horses", but fail to see any significant gain or usage of the phrase.

Here you agree with; "on one hand heavy and full and the other empty and light as was demonstrated". How do you ascertain the use of "light" if gravity does not apply?

My eyes are open, are yours? Since announcing that I was no longer pursuing Bessler's path, I have never stated anything in regards to making weights rise and fall. I do not believe one pound can lift one pound let alone four pounds.

My mind is as open as it will ever be, Wagner was right and whether Bessler ever stated that which he denied, telling Wagner that he never made such a comment is IMO irrelevant.

I have reason to believe Bessler was also right when he proclaimed a Perpetuum Mobile that was also a Mobile per se. It did not sustain itself by lifting falling weights. The so called "assumption" of hearing falling weights but unable to verify may not have been falling weights.

A straight forward question: Do you really believe that Bessler's twelve foot diameter wheel was powered by mediocre four pound weights? I care less about a response involving what would happen on the moon.

justsomeone, any force capable of rotating a wheel is also capable of lifting weights, which can then fall and rotate the wheel. Just physics 101.

Would you be so kind as to give us some examples of "any force" that is intrinsic and capable of lifting weights which can fall, rotating a wheel? Are you not contradicting your own rebuttal here? If it is taught in physics 101 you should not have any problem explaining. "Capable of lifting which can fall"... I thought we just agreed that is not how it was done.

My eyes and ears are open during all waking hours, unfortunately so is my mouth when it comes to questionable arbitrary remarks.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

what is missing? energy in to replace losses? energy! the wheel was taking energy in, but how? either fraud or heat or pressure, which we think they thought wasn't fraud.


without some form of energy in as we understand them, the best you can do is less than a perfect (perpetual motion) machine. anything else is a fraud.

anything inside a wheel can't make it's own energy.

what follows from that, forms of energy and machines and their environments as we understand them, is

kinetic motion of energy, internal to a system, can't be created to replace load losses.

kinetic motion is a form of energy, and more motion can't be created from itself. only converted to other forms, including kinetic motion, minus work on outside systems, minus loss.

both gravity wheels and motion wheels are the same thing under CoE, just with different frames, or lines, of flawed reasoning. you can't create it.
energy.


imagine taking forever to get to the center of a black hole. but you wouldn't know it was taking forever, if you could survive. the closer you get, the longer you live.

[rlortie]

Inertia is the resistance to acceleration. Momentum is the resistance to deceleration. In the English language, stationary objects are usually considered to have inertia, which must be overcome when the object is moved. And moving objects are usually considered to have momentum that keeps them moving. In reality, they are the same characteristic of mass, and are defined by Newtons First Law of Motion. [

How many times has this been posted?

Inertia, the property of matter that causes it to resist any change of its motion in either direction or speed. This property is accurately described by the first law of motion of the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton: An object at rest tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion tends to continue in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.

Momentum is a product of mass and velocity, aka Latin for "impetus".
Kinetic energy is energy possessed by a body because of its motion.

In my teachings Momentum is not the resistance to deceleration inertia is.

Any body spinning on its axis, such as a flywheel, exhibits rotational inertia, a resistance to change of its rotational speed. To change the rate of rotation of an object by a certain amount, a relatively large force is required for an object with a large rotational inertia, and a relatively small force is required for an object with a small rotational inertia. Flywheels, which are attached to the crankshaft in automobile engines, have a large rotational inertia. The engine delivers power in surges; the large rotational inertia of the flywheel absorbs these surges and keeps the engine delivering power smoothly.
An object's inertia is determined by its mass. Newton's second law states that a force acting on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration the object undergoes. Thus, if a force causes an object to accelerate at a certain rate, then a stronger force must be applied to make a more massive object accelerate at the same rate; the more massive object has a larger amount of inertia that must be overcome. For example, if a bowling ball and a baseball are accelerated so that they end up rolling at the same speed, then a larger force must have been applied to the bowling ball, since it has more inertia.

If you can do this without gravity then the more "massive" object becomes irrelevant.

"Inertia," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[eccentrically1]

acceleration and deceleration are the same thing to inertia.
the sign is reversed and deceleration becomes negative acceleration.
so inertia is resistance to acceleration *and* negative acceleration.

[eccentrically1]

i'd punch my dot if i could, but i'll settle for a beer.

[rlortie]

Ralph:

To all who have stated that something is impossible or an impossibility, I question: What the hell are you doing on this forum?

Come on Ralph, there is still the mystery of how Bessler deceived everybody even if he was a fraud and those people should be able to comment too, especially when they have real physics to back up their arguments. This is no different than demanding people only look in a certain area of principles of Gravity, CF or anything else. All people should have the freedom to express their views without pressure from those with different concepts, because since they all defy science as it is known right now.

Yes daxwc, your point is well taken! You caught me with my dander up!

In fact you are reminding me that in certain words I posted the same thoughts only last night. The right for one to speak his views freely without being chastised and under pressure by the narrow sighted demanding.

I do however note your statement:"when they have real physics to back up their arguments." I hope by this you mean objective proven physics and not taught physics where some are based on assumptions.

Broad shouldered Ralph will eat his humble pie.

Ralph

[rlortie]

what is missing? energy in to replace losses? energy! the wheel was taking energy in, but how? either fraud or heat or pressure, which we think they thought wasn't fraud.

Would you consider gravity as an energy force in? Fluid inside a tractor tire seeks its own level, doesn't gravity influence this phenomenon?

Without some form of energy in as we understand them, the best you can do is less than a perfect (perpetual motion) machine. anything else is a fraud.

I think we all have a view of gravity as a force, problem is we have a problem separating it from the word "conservative"

Anything inside a wheel can't make it's own energy.

A formidable statement worthy of an optimistic challenge to prove wrong!

What follows from that, forms of energy and machines and their environments as we understand them, is kinetic motion of energy, internal to a system, can't be created to replace load losses.

You do not have to replace load losses if you do not let it out of a closed loop system.

kinetic motion is a form of energy, and more motion can't be created from itself. only converted to other forms, including kinetic motion, minus work on outside systems, minus loss.

If I make a void within a Newtonian fluid mass, will Newtons law tell said fluid to level itself out by filling that void?

both gravity wheels and motion wheels are the same thing under CoE, just with different frames, or lines, of flawed reasoning. you can't create it.

For now, I will settler for "flawed reasoning.

Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing to inertia.
the sign is reversed and deceleration becomes negative acceleration.
so inertia is resistance to acceleration *and* negative acceleration.

I believe I just quoted something to that effect, anyway I will buy it!

i'd punch my dot if i could, but i'll settle for a beer.

May have a problem trying to get a beer to you. But seeing as how I have never punched your little green do-dad, I think you have earned the right for me to do so! Seldom drink beer anymore but for your information I am an old fan of "Olympia" beer.

Ralph

[pequaide]

Ya; I could never figure that out either. Why are people on this sight telling us it can't be done? WE KNOW the pointy heads in the universities think it can't be done. And every skull of mush that they convinced thinks it can't be done. The problem is that the conservation of both of these formulas (mv and 1/2mv²) is a mathematical impossibility.

Even when a flywheel (m) is placed upon a good bearing it takes a large force (F) to accelerate (a or v/t) the wheel. And the F has to be applied for a period of time t. Ft = mv or F = ma.

If you are accelerating internal masses in a wheel then that internal mass has to be smaller than the total mass. All the motion can be transferred to the smaller mass. And again smokin lamas is a good example, but there are many others. The Ft that accelerates the internal mass is the same Ft that decelerates the wheel. Or the total momentum of the system remains the same: where have we heard this before; it is called The Law of Conservation of Momentum.

If you remove the momentum from a massive slower moving wheel there is not a great energy change because slow moving masses don't have much energy. But if you give that momentum, of the wheel, to a smaller internal mass the energy change in the smaller mass is huge; and much greater than the energy lost by the wheel. “the conservation of both of these formulas (mv and 1/2mv²) is a mathematical impossibility

[ovyyus]

Drawing battle lines over whether an invisible elephant might be pink or purple is what politicians do. That usually ends poorly for everyone.

[jim_mich]

Here you agree with; "on one hand heavy and full and the other empty and light as was demonstrated". How do you ascertain the use of "light" if gravity does not apply?

The wheel rotated while lifting a heavy and full load, by pulling that heavy and full load upward to the second floor window against gravity. And on the other hand, the wheel also ran while empty and light, without any load. This is the meaning of that phrase. The wheel ran equally well on the one hand, as on the other.

The one side verses the other was not about the arrangement of the weights inside the wheel. The one side/hand verses the other was about how the wheel kept rotating with a heavy and full load as it did empty and no load.

A straight forward question: Do you really believe that Bessler's twelve foot diameter wheel was powered by mediocre four pound weights?

Yes, I do. The inertial impulse of the moving 4 pound weights calculate out to a little more HP or Watts than it would take perform as the witnesses described.

acceleration and deceleration are the same thing to inertia.
the sign is reversed and deceleration becomes negative acceleration.
so inertia is resistance to acceleration *and* negative acceleration.

Once more we have someone with above average intelligence. Thank you eccentrically1. This is what I've been saying. Inertia and momentum are the same thing, just looked at from different perspectives. There is a formula for calculating momentum. As far as I know, inertia is more of a vague concept without any formula defining a specific value.

Bill, I see no elephants. It is clod camper that sees elephants where there are none.

[daxwc]

pequaide

Ya; I could never figure that out either. Why are people on this sight telling us it can't be done?

Well that is easy, because it has never been done so far despite millions of tries.

Sort of I guess like the reverse of; I could never figure out why people put theories into a public forum then ask and ban people from that thread that don’t agree with them, even though they don’t have a running wheel.