Bessler's (4th) Kassel wheel Archimedes screw pump calculations

[ovyyus]

Any PM wheel rotated by gravity, inertia, and/or momentum for an indefinite time would not be an environmental engine, as far as I'm concerned. They would be perpetual motion.

Personal definitions of perpetual motion in 2013 seem irrelevant to the Bessler discussion. James Cox knew exactly what was driving his clock mechanism in the 1760's yet he claimed it was a "true perpetual motion machine". Was James Cox a liar and a fraud? What might that say about Bessler's definition of 'true perpetual motion' in 1712?

[pequaide]

That is why it is more correct or use the words “energy producing experiments' or machines�. If some other form of energy is used up then it is not energy producing. The barometric clock uses up solar energy. Gravity is not used up in a gravity engine and momentum is not used up in a momentum producing engine. The cylinder and spheres does not use up energy it makes it.

[ovyyus]

At least James Cox offered an actual working "true perpetual motion machine" to support his claim. So what's the problem pequaide, where is your actual working energy producing perpetual motion machine to support your claim, what are you waiting for?

[eccentrically1]

EC1 wrote:
the total motion doesn't increase, but a part of the total motion does.
how can a part of something increase without increasing the total of the same something?
Yes, the total motion doesn't change. A portion increases. A portion decreases.

A Maxwell's demon swaps a faster molecule with a slower molecule. The rest remains unchanged. The total energy of the whole system remains unchanged during the first phase. Once you have a speed difference (molecules or weights) then energy becomes usable. The ectropy of the system is increased.

the problem is the speed difference between the weights is bidirectional. it isn't unidirectional like a maxwell's demon. since the change in speed has two opposing vectors, they cancel each other out.

EC1 wrote:
that's what i keep saying. it was an environmentally replenished machine.
i guess we just differ on the details of how the energy is replenished by the environment.

It depends upon how you define perpetual motion and how you define environment.

environment is defined by the boundary between the system in question and everything else, the way i understand systems and environments.

If you define the environment as 'everything', then the environment supplies ALL energy.
an open system, how i define bessler's wheel.

If you define environment as only tangible things such as atmospheric pressures, environmental heat, solar radiation, etc. then the definition of environment does not include 'everything'. Gravity is an environmental force. Would a gravity wheel be an environmental engine? Would that make it NOT perpetual motion? What about inertia and momentum? Would a motion wheel be an environmental engine? Would that make it NOT perpetual motion?

the reason thermodynamic laws declare pm impossible is because of environmental losses that can't be reduced to zero. in physics, the environment is 'everything' that isn't the system in question.
gravity wheels would be environmental engines, if you could construct one. since it's pervasive, it's part of every system and their environment.
motion wheels would not be environmental engines, if you could construct one. motion would only be part of an isolated or closed system, not the environment.


I consider PM to be any means capable of producing continuous usable forceful motion, for an indefinite period of time, without any tangible input of energy. Tangible is anything that can be blocked or shielded from entering an enclosure. Heat, air, mechanical force, light, electromagnetic radiation can all be blocked. Gravity, inertia, and momentum are normal characteristics of mass already inside the enclosure. They cannot be blocked or shielded. Any PM wheel rotated by gravity, inertia, and/or momentum for an indefinite time would not be an environmental engine, as far as I'm concerned. They would be perpetual motion.

if you could construct one.

[pequaide]

Apparently you can't read. "The cylinder and spheres does not use up energy it makes it."

[ovyyus]

Apparently you're retarded. Where is the actual working "true perpetual motion machine" to support your claim? Perpetually jumping up and down and whining that no one listens to you doesn't count.

[pequaide]

Bessler showed you a running machine and you called him a fraud because he did not show you the mechanism, I show you the mechanism and you call me a fraud because I do not show you a running machine.

The running machine is not going to do any good; you will call the inventor a fraud like you did Bessler. Only if you have enough integrity to investigate the mechanism is this going to work. But apparently you are happy to blabber your heads off about something that happened 300 years ago.

Bessler intended that you would not figure it out, and you did not. Get over it.

Thanks for the r word, it shows me what caliber of person you are.

[ovyyus]

I show you the mechanism and you call me a fraud because I do not show you a running machine.

I never called you a fraud, I called you a retard. Apparently you can't read.

[Furcurequs]

Maxwell's Demon would take existing motion of gas molecules and sort them faster and slower. Bessler's ectropy wheel would take existing motion of weight and sort motion into faster and slower moving mass. In either case the total motion is not increased. But also in each case the usable harnessable motion increases. The molecule pressure difference can push one against the other to produce usable force. The inertial momentum motion of weights can act one against the other to cause usable force. In either case the environment replenishes the energy.

If we actually could in reality have the hypothetical Maxwell's demon, then it would indeed be able to sort fast moving molecules from the more slowly moving molecules and separate them into two different reservoirs that would then have different temperatures and heat content (and pressures). The temperature differential between the two reservoirs would then allow for the application of a conventional heat engine that could convert SOME of the available molecular kinetic (heat) energy to macroscopic kinetic energy.

Extracting some of the heat energy with the conventional heat engine would then lower the overall average heat content of the two reservoirs along with their average temperature to below the ambient so that heat from the ambient environment could then flow back into the reservoirs to replenish the energy that was taken out. ...with the ambient environment being a huge source of heat energy, of course.

The whole point of trying to conjure up a Maxwell's Demon is then to try to find a way of accessing and putting to use on a macroscopic scale some of the thermal molecular kinetic energy available in the ambient heat of the environment.

Kinetic energy of interracting masses is not always conserved on a macroscopic scale, however, like it is assumed to be on a molecular level (when neglecting that lost to radiation, of course). So, if you apply a load to the output of your alleged "motion machine," then although the momentum and inertia of your moving masses will provide a force against that load and thus do work, the reactive force from the load on those masses will also slow them down - taking away some of their kinetic energy that as far as your motion machine is concerned is likely gone forever.

From where, then, comes the kinetic energy to bring your motion machine's masses back up to speed after some of their kinetic energy is given up to the load and/or is lost to friction and air resistance and such in your device? This is where you seemingly do little more than hand wave (when you don't just outright ignore the question) and so don't offer any sort of rational answer.

Those in mainstream science would say, of course, that it is mathematically proven that in reality we can't even have a working Maxwell's Demon. As I understand it, the involved mathematical proof uses information theory and the explanation for why it is impossible is essentially that a mechanism functioning as a Maxwell's Demon that does the equivalent of opening and shutting a sorting gate would simply require too much energy of its own to be operational in reality.

So, jim_mich, in arguing how your alleged "motion machine" is supposed to get its excess energy, you have apparently taken what is a scientifically accepted mathematically proven impossibility as the very base of your argument and then on top of that added a wholly inadequate and incoherent explanation to boot (when, of course, you try to even explain it at all).

Since I have had engineering training, though, and thus have something of a technical background and understand the sorts of technical terms that you have been using, I would like to translate what you have been saying here to a more common language so that others without such training might be able to understand what you are saying as well as I do and so be better able to evaluate it for themselves:

"Blah, blah, blah, garbage, garbage, garbage, miniature magical fairy (that science speaks of as the purely hypothetical Maxwell's Demon), hand wave, hand wave, hand wave, garbage, garbage, garbage, blah, blah, blah."

There! I sure hope that translation is helpful for everyone!

Really, though, jim_mich, what are you trying to do here?

Do you just want a bunch of mindless believers who will simply take your unsubstantiated claims on faith because you're supposed to be such an intelligent and capable person?

Come on! You certainly aren't going to find such an accepting person in me. Maybe some here may so want to believe you that they'll suspend their reason and judgment and just accept what you have to say on blind faith alone or maybe some here are simply too ignorant of fundamental physics to even know how much garbage you actually spew sometimes.

...but, again, that's not me, man!

Now, personally I've been thinking about Maxwell's Demon for years and I think I MAY even have a solution that could overcome some of the supposed problems with the concept. Of course, though, my idea wouldn't exactly be a true Maxwell's Demon as currently defined but rather something a bit different that might possibly achieve the same goal it was meant to achieve but while also being very different in its actual application - and thereby hopefully circumventing the specific problems associated with a Maxwell's Demon as originally defined . My now years old ideas are currently still untested, though, so I can in no way claim to know for sure whether they will actually work or not. It's something I need to get back to - if just to satisfy my own curiosity.

When it comes to making claims, in this forum there are quite a few people who speak as if they have Bessler's answer and that all they have to do is build the device and they'll just show everyone. I'm not sure I could count them all on both hands. I know I couldn't count them all on one, unless I used my fingers to count in binary. Honestly, though, the chances are that none of them, none of you, none of us, even, have the answer. So, it sort of annoys me the tone that so many here seem to take.

Now, I certainly have many speculative ideas of my own that I'm trying to explore, too, yet I wouldn't dare presume to KNOW that they are going to work before I've actually done all the necessary testing so that I could then actually speak with true knowledge about their functionality.

jim_mich, you not only would seemingly presume to know you have the answer, but you would dare presume to lecture us as to how it's done and even how it's not done. ...even possibly attempting to lecture people more knowledgeable and capable than yourself.

Now, I can't claim to know whether you actually have anything working or not, but based upon the ignorance you sometimes show in this forum I highly doubt that you do. As a matter of fact, of all the people who speak as if they have the answer, after some of the stuff you have said, you would probably be the very last one I would believe (well, if I believed anyone at all - lol).

I certainly do understand how frustrating it is to have to battle health problems and whatnot to get anything done. I understand the periods of high optimism where you think "if I can just get this thing built, it might actually work!" I also have experienced the periods of great pessimism where I tell myself "eh, the odds of this thing working really aren't very great. What am I overlooking? What have I gotten wrong? Can I really do what I'm trying to do? Maybe I'm just wasting my precious time and should just quit this stuff!"

...but ultimately I decide to continue weathering the storms and to try to just keep plugging away if only to satisfy my own curiosity and perhaps even complete a test unlike anything that anyone else has ever done before - and whatever the ultimate result.

When it comes to inventive ideas, in the past I've had both successes and failures. The inspirations for both felt the same, though, and they were exciting. Unfortunately I can't say the same about seeing the experimental results.

I know that trying to pretend a hypothesis is fact may help in maintaining a bit of excitement that can motivate us to get some things done, but all-in-all it's probably just not very wise to treat what we've thus far only imagined as real until, of course, we've fully translated our ideas into real world mechanisms that actually do pass the muster.

Dwayne

[pequaide]

Furcurequs quote "scientifically accepted mathematically proven impossibility" F = ma ??? really ???

[ovyyus]

A good summation of the current predicament Dwayne. I guess the moral of the story is that intelligence doesn't always inoculate us against stupid :D

[eccentrically1]

furcurequs was talking about the demon being impossible, not f=ma.

we need to figure out why they let it go.

They didn't "let it go". Bessler was screwed by idiot skeptics that were so absolutely darn sure that perpetual motion was impossible, that they proclaimed loud and clear that Bessler must be a fraud. And Bessler, knowing that he had a true PM machine, remained steadfast is demanding a large price for his invention. And so a sale never materialized.

And that is the story. Did Bessler really invent an ectropy wheel? Or was he one of the greatest hoaxes in history?

My opinion is that he built an ectropy wheel capable of doing to motion what a Maxwell Demon would do with heat.

Maxwell's Demon would take existing motion of gas molecules and sort them faster and slower. Bessler's ectropy wheel would take existing motion of weight and sort motion into faster and slower moving mass. In either case the total motion is not increased. But also in each case the usable harnessable motion increases. The molecule pressure difference can push one against the other to produce usable force. The inertial momentum motion of weights can act one against the other to cause usable force. In either case the environment replenishes the energy.

But of course this sounds like fairy dust, bunny smoke, or Hogwarts Harry Potter magic. Why would anyone believe that such magic could be done? Why would anyone from 300 years ago believe that a box might talk, or that a box might contain the music of a whole orchestra and choir, or that it might display moving colored pictures, or that one might press keys on a box on one side of the Earth and people on the other side could read what you pressed?

And since the experts said Bessler's wheel was a fraud, giving the reasons that perpetual motion is impossible, and since even the great Prince Karl could not find a believer to pay the price, the wheel knowledge died first with Karl, and then with Bessler.

Of course I could be wrong. Obviously this is just my opinion.

I disagree, there have been skeptics for every successful scientific advancement, and the inventors or discoverers didn't let them go. we don't need a list, we know them.

given our advanced understanding of the universe, past and present and future, perpetual motion is impossible without question and there are several different ways to show why without resorting to circular logic, which is the defense for PM often used.
on the other hand, the examples of successful advancements have all lined up with our understanding of physical laws. none of them have retroactively been shown to violate those laws. a pm machine would have to violate the law of conservation of mechanical energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
unless bessler's wheel was pumping in energy from outside, or had a hidden, finite, internal supply of energy of its own, it was creating energy, something nothing else in the universe has ever been shown to do in the past or present. not even the stars create energy, they transform it. we can't even conceive how energy in any form could be created, including motion energy, other than maybe capturing a new form like dark energy, or particles that blink in and out of existence.

you wouldn't just let something like that go.
it was an environmental engine, so they let it go.

[Oystein]

You quote a "law" that was made on the assumption that Besslers wheel did not work, without knowing how it worked.

It was made under the assumption that no arrangement (even if Bessler earlier have said that there exist ONE SINGLE PRINCIPLE that is "the laws of mechanical Perpetual Motion") can come out with any other number than 100%. You and they call him i liar, even if Bessler wrote "Orffyreus can NOT lie". The public figure, the inventor of Mechanical PM ORFFYREUS can NOT lie. He does not write lies that can be used against him at a later time.

The idea that 100% = 100% is so "basic and self explanatory", why even bother making that link? Do you think that there are serious PM researchers that does not in detail know the reason for those assumptions? The only interesting about the link is that the second person depicted is Gotfried Leibniz, which was one of Besslers supporters and was close to buying the wheel or some way wanted to pay to know the secret himself. Leibniz recognized that the excess impetus came from inside of the wheel. And still he is used as the grandfather of the Conservation of Energy. He believed there where a unknown substance that added momentum or energy to a falling body inside Orffyreus wheel.

Where are that substance? Have we found that substance yet? Why can`t the same scientific community answer that question from Leibniz?
If they can`t explain it, Bessler words are just as true as one of basic foundations for Conservation of energy itself.

Conservation of Energy "law" is therefore (among many other things) founded upon this unsolved question:

The "unknown substance" from 1700s vs. Orffyreus words, which is true?

So our scientific advancement is based on the assumption from convictions, that the one is more correct than the other. But no proof is actually provided. And a "self explanatory" "law" is established on top of that.

So you see that the "law" is no argument in itself, it`s in a line of thought, a belief, a conviction, from calculating non Orffyrean mechanics.
There exist no 100% proof, because Orffyrean mechanics have not been put to the test yet!

Let me add: IMO :-)

Edit: Added:

I think you should try to find that substance and test it, while I will try to test the Orffyrean mechanism and we may compare results when the time is ready. I will be the first person to publicly approve of your substance test-results, andI will be the first announce if the Orffyrean mechanism needs that missing substance of yours.

[cloud camper]

Mr Randall has made two fundamental and fatal errors in his "motion wheel" calculations.

Number one is the belief that weight inertia can generate a force. Randall clearly believes this as he has repeatedly claimed that CF is nonlinear so therefore must be non conservative and then generates these huge forces that can be utilized.

But even by Randall's own definitions, inertia is not a force, only a resistance to a force. CF is then only a manifestation of this resistance and is not a force either.

Randall keeps mesmerising himself by calculating impressive CF values at varying rpm's, but fails to consider that CP is constantly opposing inertial resistance with exactly the same values such that the difference is always zero. This is "idotic" according to Randall.

Fatal error number two: Randall has neglected to account for the energy required to accelerate an extending weight from it's initial low circular velocity at it's location close to the wheel hub to the much higher circular velocity at it's extended location now close to the rim.

This acceleration requires energy input, which Randall has totally ignored.

The end result of these two errors are that what Randall had calculated as a gain is actually a loss.

[jim_mich]

Mr Randall has made two fundamental and fatal errors in his "motion wheel" calculations.

Number one is the belief that weight inertia can generate a force. Randall clearly believes this as he has repeatedly claimed that CF is nonlinear so therefore must be non conservative and then generates these huge forces that can be utilized.

But even by Randall's own definitions, inertia is not a force, only a resistance to a force. CF is then only a manifestation of this resistance and is not a force either.

Randall keeps mesmerising himself by calculating impressive CF values at all different rpm's, but continually fails to consider that CP is constantly opposing inertial resistance with exactly the same values such that the difference is always zero. This is "idotic" according to Randall.

Fatal error number two: Randall has neglected to account for the energy required to accelerate an extending weight from it's initial low circular velocity at it's location close to the wheel hub to the much higher circular velocity at it's extended location now close to the rim.

This acceleration requires energy input, which Randall has totally ignored.

The end result of these two errors are that what Randall had calculated as a gain is actually a loss.

The resident troll has arrived spewing his usual lies.

Mr. troll, you claim to know everything. Tell us what the CF is of a 1 lb weight at 24 inch radius rotating at 10 RPM. Then tell us the CF at 20 RPM. Then at 30 RPM. And at 40 RPM. Now graph those results. Then come back and tell us you have a linear straight line on your graph.

Hint: At 10 RPM CF is 0.068 lbs of force and at 40 RPM it is 1.0907 lbs of force.

If I'm wrong, and CF is linear as the troll claims, rather than non-linear as I've said, then CF would be 0.4090 at 20 RPM and 0.7498 at 30 RPM. But CF is not linear. Clod camper is wrong.

My point is that clod camper keeps posting lies about me.
My point is that I fully understand CF, while clod camper hasn't a clue.
And furthermore, clod camper doesn't know how to spell.