Prime Mover

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

Moderator: scott

ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Prime Mover

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote:The prime mover is inertia and momentum, which in reality are one and the same, one being resistance to acceleration, and the other resistance to deceleration.
Inertia and momentum are attributes of mass. A prime mover is a thing, not an attribute. I don't see how the water can simultaneously act as a prime mover and a load. A better description of your proposed relationship between water acceleration and water deceleration in the pipes would be helpful.
jim_mich wrote:I keep saying it's a motion wheel. Motion is the prime mover.
I don't think anyone here would be unaware of what you keep saying.
User avatar
AB Hammer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3728
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:46 am
Location: La.
Contact:

re: Prime Mover

Post by AB Hammer »

ovyyus

I am very aware of what jim_mich is saying. You just have to look at it in different layers.

______________________

jim_mich, Ralph, and others on fluid attempts

You got it? ;-)
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"

So With out a dream, there is no vision.

Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos

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

Post by jim_mich »

Bill wrote: A prime mover is a thing, not an attribute.
And this point of yours shows the confusion about the definition of a primer mover. Like most words or phrases, this one has multiple meanings, but they all relate to one another. The first definition is that of an initial or original force. The second definition is any natural force applied by a person or animal. The third definition is a machine that converts a force defined in the first two definitions. And the final definition is the first force which originates between an unmoved object and the moved object.
Prime Mover definition from Collins Dictionary:
Prime Mover
1. a. the original force in a series of transmissions of force
... b. any initiating or principal force
2. any natural force applied by people to produce power, as muscular energy or flowing water
3. a machine, as a turbine, that converts a natural force into productive power
4. in the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, the first cause of all movement, itself unmoved
So bill, your definition of prime mover is the third one. But getting back to your question, the prime mover force is inertia and momentum. These forces move the fluid water. The motion of the flowing water turns the wheel by way of inertia and momentum. And of course the very first force is the start-up rotational push to the wheel by a human hand or some other initiating force.

Image
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Prime Mover

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim_mich,
Yes, the concept of motion causing more motion is unusual and hard to understand. But a working perpetual motion must involve some principle that is unusual and not common, else if it were just the common rising and falling of leveraged weights, it would have already have been found long ago.
Long ago, what about 300 years ago!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

jim_mich wrote:EC1, you are a Johnny come lately. Your concept of 'surprise!' has been discussed extensively previously on the forum by myself and others. It is nothing new. We 'old timers' are very well aware of such a concept that all devices reduce to either a body rotating about a hinge or an inclined plane. You keep making these stupid assumptions that we are ignorant of these facts. Some of the newbies might be unaware of such things, but I assure you that forum members that have been here since near the inception of the Bessler Wheel forum are very aware of such things. We are not the ignorant boobs that you keep assuming.

See this link from about nine years ago.
i know it's nothing new to you 'old-timers', but when i began to read the link you referenced, i couldn't help but notice one other comment you posted about tommyk's design, from page two (the bolding is mine, the comment has not been truncated):
jim wrote:ovyyus,
Maybe they are two different wheels? Maybe the first didn't work so he went to plan B. I confined my conversation with him to just his current wheel. His overall concept seems to make sense. If the wheel and weights are turning the weights can produce a rotating torque. But I need to verify if gravity can keep the weights swinging. From his picture I know the dimensions of all the components. I know where the angle brackets mount. I think I know where the springs mount. The orientation of the brackets is unknown and would need trial and error or computer simulation.
TommyK has already said his wheel bangs and clacks. So the weights hit each other.

TommyK wants fame and fortune without the fame.
i literally laughed when i got to that point in the thread. i wasn't sure if i needed to keep reading past the point where you explained that there are only two simple machines.

so just so all old timers and newbies are on the same page, all machines reduce to levers and/or ramps, and combinations thereof. if that makes me a plump wheel gobbling troll, so be it, and make it so.
As far as a lever being the only mechanism, such a statement is only partly true. It depend upon your concept of a lever.
my concept of a lever is the only concept there is. load, effort and fulcrum. depending on where the fulcrum is determines the class of lever - 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. have you discovered a new class?
A lever would be any means whereby motion of one mass causes motion of a second mass. And this fits Bessler's description whereby as one weight moves outward another weight moves inward. Then they swap. This of course requires a leveraging mechanisms of some sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine#History
wiki entry on simple machine wrote:The complete dynamic theory of simple machines was worked out by Italian scientist Galileo Galilei in 1600 in Le Meccaniche ("On Mechanics").[16][17] He was the first to understand that simple machines do not create energy, only transform it.[16]
But you mention the 'prime mover' lifting weights out of balance. Why do you insist upon lifting weights? You involve gravity when you insist upon lifting of weights. I keep explaining that gravity is not a factor. But then you seem to forget and soon you write about my design 'lifting weights'. There is no lifting of weights in my design. Yes weight go round and round and thus some weight rises as other weight falls. But the wheel is balanced and thus the rising negates the falling. So you can forget about the rising and falling of weights. It's as if there is just a single wheel mass.
do you prefer 'shifting', 'levering', ? motion swapping?
you have to have an unbalance of forces to have acceleration. wheels don't accelerate unless the net forces on them are unbalanced. your wheel may be balanced, but it won't accelerate unless it has that. and all the old timers know that in circular motion, the unbalanced force is in the radial direction towards the axis of rotation, the centripetal force requirement. if the force wasn't unbalanced this way, then circular motion doesn't occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_( ... ugal_force
If an object were simultaneously subject to both a centripetal force and an equal and opposite centrifugal force, the resultant force would vanish and the object could not experience a circular motion. The centrifugal force is sometimes called a fictitious force or pseudo force, to underscore the fact that such a force only appears when calculations or measurements are conducted in non-inertial reference frames.

Bessler's last two wheels were balanced when stationary and they were balanced when rotated slowly. Only when rotated a little faster so that weights were heard to begin moving within the wheel would the weights then 'gain force' from their motions and provide force to rotate the wheel.

Obviously this increased force must come from some source. And I've explained the source of the extra energy on a number of occasions. Maybe you missed those posts?
no, i've seen them, and commented on them.
Maybe you didn't understand?
no, i understand and i also understand why it isn't creating energy.
The extra energy comes by way of 'usable energy'. I know this concept is foreign to most people. James Clerk Maxwell wrote about such a concept way back in 1867. Except that his version involved the motions of individual molecules. His concept was that the gas molecules are all in motion and thus they contained kinetic energy. But their average banging against the walls of a vessel produced an average gas pressure. Maxwell conceived of an entity that became known a Maxwell's Demon, which entity sorted the gas molecules according to their speed, and thus the molecules were sorted into two groups, one containing warmer faster moving molecules, and another group containing colder slower moving molecules. The total heat of the two groups isn't changed by the sorting. But the usable energy is increased
it is? how?
because any simple heat engine could then use the temperature difference to produce mechanical motion, and thus output energy perpetually, as long as the friction heat of the work done is recycled back to the colder gas.
even if a hypothetical system could be rigged to recycle all of its friction, it still doesn't create more heat to replace the heat being used to produce mechanical motion.
Now my PM wheel works upon a similar principle except that it is weight motion that is sorted and transferred quite naturally from slower less energetic weights to faster more energetic weights. This is like having heat transfer spontaneously from a cold object to a warm object. Such a transferring of heat energy is against thermodynamic laws. But the transferring of mechanical motion from slower objects to faster objects does not go against thermodynamic laws.


but it does go against the laws of motion. i'll leave this one for cloud camper or some other troll to discuss.
This is because it is not a transfer of heat. Such a transferring of motion is very rare and not common. It requires a rotating environment. But believe me, it is not an impossible task, such as trying to get heat to move from cold to warmer objects.

My fluid wheel version eliminates any levers.


it relies on the "path"?
Fluid pushes fluid. Thus the motion of one portion of fluid moves another portion of fluid. So this arrangement does act like a very simple leveraging machine.

So you, eccentrically1, keep trolling.
if you insist.
Keep assuming that the forum members here are idiots. But many of us have already been where you're just now starting to tread.

Yes, the concept of motion causing more motion is unusual and hard to understand. But a working perpetual motion must involve some principle that is unusual and not common, else if it were just the common rising and falling of leveraged weights, it would have already have been found long ago.

Just my opinions.
as usual, i'll be under the great bridge of perpetual energy, waiting to gobble up fat, juicy wheels.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

EC1 wrote:do you prefer 'shifting', 'levering', ? motion swapping?
you have to have an unbalance of forces to have acceleration. wheels don't accelerate unless the net forces on them are unbalanced. your wheel may be balanced, but it won't accelerate unless it has that. and all the old timers know that in circular motion, the unbalanced force is in the radial direction towards the axis of rotation, the centripetal force requirement. if the force wasn't unbalanced this way, then circular motion doesn't occur.
Stop squirming! You did not originally say, 'shifting', 'levering', ? motion swapping. You said lifts the weights out of balance.
EC1 wrote:jim's design revolves around the idea that mass, once set in circular motion, can be mechanically manipulated into producing, or creating, more motion ( or energy), the "prime mover", that lifts the weights out of balance.
Lifting weights out of balance infers gravity. It infers a wheel rotated by gravity acting upon out of balance weights.

Yes, I agree with you that for a wheel to rotate requires unbalanced force. I've been claiming all along that in many cases when Bessler used the words 'Uberwucht' (overweight or imbalance) it means more force one way than the other. All wheels require 'Uberwucht' for rotation. But my point is that you, by using the word lifts, implied my wheel to be rotated by gravity. My complaint was not about what words you use. It was about you saying that my wheel lifts weights out of balance. It does not lift any internal weights. It is always balanced, as I believe Bessler's later wheels were.

EC1 wrote:my concept of a lever is the only concept there is. load, effort and fulcrum. depending on where the fulcrum is determines the class of lever - 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. have you discovered a new class?
And now I expect you will start squirming again and back peddling. Here is my question... In which class of lever does hydraulics fall? Hydraulic fluid acts like a lever, but it is not a lever. There is no fulcrum point. But you can input force and output greater or lesser force over shorter or longer distances. Thus hydraulics acts like a lever, but it is not actually a lever. So, is this a new class of levers? No! Hydraulics is simply a different method of producing leverage without an actual lever. That was my point when I said, "it depends upon your concept of a lever." But my comment went whoosh right over your head. Then you insulted me by asking if I've discovered some new class of lever. Stop being such an ass. Read what I write. Then engage your brain before assuming that I'm unintelligent and don't know what I'm talking about.


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

re: Prime Mover

Post by eccentrically1 »

Stop being such an ass.
would that be a troll's ass?

i'm not squirming. all the old timers know who is squirming.
i asked if you preferred a different word to "Lift Out Of Balance", that's all.
geez.
jim wrote:Yes, I agree with you that for a wheel to rotate requires unbalanced force.
My complaint was not about what words you use. It was about you saying that my wheel lifts weights out of balance. It does not lift any internal weights. It is always balanced,
except when it's not? how can it be always balanced, and have the requirement of unbalanced force, the centripetal force requirement?
as I believe Bessler's later wheels were.


can your design climb up a hill? theoretically, it should. glue that puppy together and let's see.

hydraulic fluid is not a lever. genius!
what was it you said, force by itself does nothing, it has to act on physical material? can physical material do anything alone?

E1, dastardly, illbegotten, troll's ass guarding the laws of the universe, at your service!
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Ec2 wrote:except when it's not? how can it be always balanced, and have the requirement of unbalanced force, the centripetal force requirement?
At this point I don't know if you're just trying to be obtuse (slow to understand or perceive; dull or insensitive) or whether you just don't understand my words?

Like most English words, the word 'balance' has multiple meanings. I try my darndest to convey which meaning I intend. But it seems you still fail to understand.

There is gravitational 'balance', along with its inverse, gravitational imbalance or unbalanced. This is where more weight mass is to one side of a wheel (or lever or whatever) thus causing more gravitational force on one side, thus causing rotation. This is the common goal for most PM wheel seekers.

There is force 'balance', along with its inverse, force imbalance or unbalanced force. This is usually just called force, and the imbalance is implied.

Either type of imbalance/unbalance will rotate a wheel. But gravitational OOB requires the lifting upward of weights so that they can fall and thus make use of gravity to rotate the wheel. Unbalanced force alone does not rely upon gravity. A turbine is an example of unbalanced force rotating a wheel.

When I say my wheel is always balanced, it seems obvious to me, but maybe not to others, that I'm referring to gravitational balance. Obviously a wheel needs unbalanced force to self-rotate. My wheel uses only unbalanced inertial forces to cause rotation. It is not a gravity wheel. It is a motion wheel.

So when you infer that weights are lifted out of balance within my wheel, you are totally wrong. There is no lifting of weight out of balance.

So there can be no different words for you to use in place of "Lift the weights out of balance" because there is no lifting (or falling) of weights.

The centrifugal forces of the weight-masses within the wheel are unbalanced, just as the inertial forces that rotate the wheel are unbalanced. But the wheel as a whole along with all of its component is fully balanced, or very nearly so, since wheels are seldom perfectly balanced. The wheel does not become heavier on one side when rotated. Gravity does not rotate my wheel. There is no lifting of weights out of balance.

Hydraulic fluid is not a lever in the traditional sense, but it is a lever in a functional sense. Hydraulic fluid is not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class lever. It does not fit into any of these pigeon-hole classes of levers. But in your ignorance, you tried to make fun of me by suggesting I needed to discover a new class of lever. It was your error, not mine. Simply admit your error and stop squirming.

The same goes for an unbalanced wheel. You were only thinking of a gravitationally unbalanced wheel when you said my wheel lifts weights out of balance. Simply admit your error and stop squirming.


Image
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7373
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Prime Mover

Post by daxwc »

Jim:
The wheel does not become heavier on one side when rotated.
Really???
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7373
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Prime Mover

Post by daxwc »

Jim:
Obviously a wheel needs unbalanced force to self-rotate. My wheel uses only unbalanced inertial forces to cause rotation.
This sounds like another force without movement perception problem.


PS: Then again I have no idea what you are trying to do.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Yes, Daxwc, that is what I've been saying for a long time now. The wheel is a motion wheel, not a gravity wheel.

Yes, you are right. you have no idea what I'm trying to do.


Image
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Prime Mover

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim_mich,

when a wheel contains fluid it is heaver at the bottom of the wheel, this is a static balance due to Gravity's pull down on the fluid, to move such a wheel require a force imbalance greater than the resistance of the pull of gravity acting on the fluid, a Maxwell Diamond effect cannot supply enough energy to do this, given the weight of the fluid, volume of fluid, and the low friction and the fact it is more a negative force than a friction. Edit, and the fact that heat is not a force that easy to turn into rotation without high loss of energy in the transfer from heat to kinetic energy.

Just my thoughts on your design.

Also gravity can be used to gain leverage torque on weighted levers without any overall drop in height in the system.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:when a wheel contains fluid it is heaver at the bottom of the wheel,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but water, being a fluid, weighs the same at the bottom as at the top of a wheel.


Image
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Prime Mover

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim_mich,

do not be sorry its only a column of water, wherein 1kg of water support the above kg of water and the kg of water above that and so on, I am sure the bottom is supporting more fluid (weight ) than the top of the wheel, and the axle is somewhere in the middle.

Edit, the bottom brick in a stack of bricks weighs the same as the top brick, but you try to lift the one at the bottom.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

jim_mich wrote:
Ec2 wrote:except when it's not? how can it be always balanced, and have the requirement of unbalanced force, the centripetal force requirement?
At this point I don't know if you're just trying to be obtuse (slow to understand or perceive; dull or insensitive) or whether you just don't understand my words?
no, i'm trying. do you understand the requirement for centripetal force, or are you trying to squirm out of your error?
Like most English words, the word 'balance' has multiple meanings. I try my darndest to convey which meaning I intend. But it seems you still fail to understand.

There is gravitational 'balance', along with its inverse, gravitational imbalance or unbalanced. This is where more weight mass is to one side of a wheel (or lever or whatever) thus causing more gravitational force on one side, thus causing rotation. This is the common goal for most PM wheel seekers.

There is force 'balance', along with its inverse, force imbalance or unbalanced force. This is usually just called force, and the imbalance is implied.

Either type of imbalance/unbalance will rotate a wheel. But gravitational OOB requires the lifting upward of weights so that they can fall and thus make use of gravity to rotate the wheel. Unbalanced force alone does not rely upon gravity. A turbine is an example of unbalanced force rotating a wheel.

When I say my wheel is always balanced, it seems obvious to me, but maybe not to others, that I'm referring to gravitational balance. Obviously a wheel needs unbalanced force to self-rotate. My wheel uses only unbalanced inertial forces to cause rotation. It is not a gravity wheel.

The centrifugal forces of the weight-masses within the wheel are unbalanced, just as the inertial forces that rotate the wheel are unbalanced.
o my gosh. inertial frame of reference rears its ugly head.

Hydraulic fluid is not a lever in the traditional sense, but it is a lever in a functional sense. Hydraulic fluid is not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class lever. It does not fit into any of these pigeon-hole classes of levers. But in your ignorance, you tried to make fun of me by suggesting I needed to discover a new class of lever. It was your error, not mine. Simply admit your error and stop squirming.
i don't care if i said your wheel lifts weight. that's not the point!

you do need to discover a new class of lever! hydraulic fluid is a liquid lever by virtue of its incompressibility, but pascal's law doesn't break the law of levers!

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/WindTu ... ciple.html
This system can be thought of as a simple machine (lever), since force is multiplied.The mechanical advantage can be found by rearranging terms in the above equation to

Mechanical Advantage(IMA) = D1/D2 = A2/A1

Ec2, your friendly forum defender of friction, and all that is right and good
Post Reply