Fictitiousness

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

it always made sense to me, work done is work done irrespective of ending up with the books balanced over time, to do work or apply force takes energy.

That coat hanger and battery experiment was to show conservation of angular momentum. It really confused a lot of guys. In the end, it showed the formula/law was correct, and a lot of energy was expended at our keyboards.

Yes it was a angular momentum experiment that showed that with a energy input conservation of angular momentum can be shown.

The same experiment can also be a good experiment for showing the pull of gravity (the hand pull on the string on the video) and the effects centrifugal force would have on orbiting mass, and how CF saps the pull energy and needs more input energy to repeat the experiment, perhaps take a look again and see how much like orbits the forces are acting on the low friction orbiting mass experiment, wherein the pull inward by hand is the force of gravity on the accelerating part of the orbit and the pull out is the CF deceleration part of the orbit see what happens when he stops applying the work done by gravity (his pull), and he lets go of the string, but the mass only flies out to the stops and gravity never stops doing its work (no stops just gravity's constant work) and never lets go, of which I am very happy it does not stop doing its work.

It makes no odds to me if gravity is called a conservative force, because it seem more than happy to do work and that is all I ask of it.

Edit, add words to put in order.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

Edit, here the link to the experiment mentioned in my above posts,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg

It seems to me that the near friction less environment of space, is given for the reason the planets have managed to sustain billions of years of mass orbits, using the original inertia of the mass's when they came to be forced into their orbital paths, and no work or energy has been added to sustain the orbiting mass's, yet to sustain these orbits there has to be work done against opposing forces, which IMO would need Energy inputs (work in progress) to over come the drag effect of the opposing forces.

The main reason that we struggle to find a Bessler Wheel type device is the work (Energy) needed to overcome the opposing forces not just friction.

In short if a force is active it is not fictitious by any stretch of the imagination.

It was the lack of a working perpetual motion machine what brought about the basics of known physics, and when one was offered for sale and the offer of the inventors head if it was not the truth, it was a dismissed as Fictitious.

It would appear to me and others, the word Fictitious could be changed for a better description, Reactive Forces is so much better (Edit,if they are not reacting they are not detected), as for universal forces we have only discovered a few of the basic forces and we cannot even name some of them properly.

[eccentrically1]

It does seem impossible that earth could be billions of years old, and never slowed down, but, it actually has, and quite a bit. The length of a day about a billion years ago was only 18 hours long. I don't think the year has changed much.

Yes, gravity is always acting, or, "working", fortunately. We don't want to drift away from the sun.

I think the reason we struggle to find a Bessler wheel type device is the source of the work can't be identified, for certain.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

That is not as much as I thought it would be.

The Earth and the Moons has increased their mass over the same period, (collecting mass as we go) and adjustments would be needed. This maybe a indication of just how much mass we have collected as we moved through a thought to be a friction free environment.

Edit, when and were did the Oceans come from?

Edit, my thinking is Bessler's Wheel was a gravity wheel. We know a constant out of balance wheel will rotate, we have seen it with the over the top water wheels, my guess is that not all paths are equal and it is possible to lift a weight up using less energy than you get from its fall, it is a mechanical problem not a physic problem. A more efficient reset is all that is required, to get usable energy you can then use to balance the energy books with.

[eccentrically1]

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

A net loss actually.

i remember reading a while back that our water was deposited by comets over time.

A mechanical problem is a physics problem. But it's not a mechanical problem. Any mechanism is secondary to what was actually supplying the energy to reset the weights. What was it he said? This is a nut you mechanics can't crack?

[jim_mich]

What was it he said? This is a nut you mechanics can't crack?

Jump up and down with gusto yourself, then, Wagner - then start tearing your hair out, because you'll soon find, you splendid mechanic, that this is a nut you can't crack! If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one.

Wagner wrote of rising and falling of weights.

Bessler replied that this (rising and falling of weights) was a nut that Wagner would never crack.

Bessler gave the reason why it was a nut that can't be cracked.

The reason can be worded in many different ways. Take your choice...

- Height for width.
- Gravity is a conservative force.
- As a weight is being raised, another must give an equal downward force.

By these words, Bessler inferred that gravity was not the solution.

Making a PM wheel from rising and falling of weights is an impossible nut. It cannot be cracked.

You need to understand Bessler's humor. He was laughing at Wagner.

Bessler knew the solution was not to be found in rising and falling of weights. That type of nut can't be cracked. Perpetual motion by way of gravity is impossible. Such is the nut that can't be cracked.

There's a solution to Bessler's wheel, but it's not the uncrackable nut of rising and falling of weights.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

Cosmic dust: meteors, dust, comets, etc. Estimated 40,000 tons annually

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

The volume of water thought to be collected from outer space =(1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (km3)), so how long would it take to collect that much water at 40,000 tons a year? I roughly make it 25 years to get one cubic Km, so that would be 34,650 million years to collect the water here on earth, and that is just water not counting other masses we would have picked up on the way.

That is a lot of collisions in a friction free environment.

I must say again that humans have had too smaller window of opportunity to Know exactly what is going on and it is arrogance to proclaim we do.

I don't think the year has changed much.

Probably not when gravity accelerates the orbit every year for nearly half the year.

Hi Jim, all we know is Bessler's Wheel worked. Bessler was trying to hide the internal mechanism, (The Mechanical parts) so we must take what Bessler said with a pinch of salt. People always twist Bessler's word to suit there own designs, me and you are no exception. I must say I am not so sure about out of balance wheel, weight wise, my favorite is out of balance torque wise, I have done more work on the later, but with that said I have more than 10 out of balance wheel builds still on my to build list, so unlike most here I do not consider that all experiment have been done yet (Fact), and those that say that ever combination has been built and all experiments have been done are not telling the truth.

One question Jim, how does a motion wheel start by just unlocking and removing a lock?
Edit,

eccentrically1 wrote:
What was it he said? This is a nut you mechanics can't crack?

What he may of meant is that they was not using enough leverage and thus wasting it, but who knows it would fit for my work.

See how easy it is to take Besslers words and make them fit what ever you are working on at the time.

[eccentrically1]

Wagner wrote of rising and falling of weights.

Bessler replied that this (rising and falling of weights) was a nut that Wagner would never crack

Thanks, jim. I do understand he was taunting Wagner.

The solution then, is the nut of lifting weight, and I think that is the taunt between the lines Bessler wrote. You (Wagner) can't design a mechanism to lift weight in a wheel (using gravity).
Bessler goes on to taunt him further that he would be a great craftsman if he could make a pound rise as 4 ounces falls. The same taunt, put a different way, in the context of leverage.

And Bessler is right, mechanisms aren't the solution. Weights can't lift themselves, or each other. Mechanisms do make it easier to lift weight, but as we all know, they don't have any source of power to lift that weight, no matter the mechanism.

Bessler's clues about his principle are taunts in the same vein. For example:

"It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'"

And so on.

We know the solution can't be a mechanism. Any mechanism, and any weights attached to it, relies on a force external to it for movement. Inertial force isn't external to an object. It's internal to an object, and fictitious (using the alternate meaning of non-fundamental, or reactive for Trevor) until an external force is given.

[eccentrically1]

That is a lot of collisions in a friction free environment.

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

Some of the water could have been here already, some formed from volcanic eruptions, etc. It didn't all have to come from comets.

How many collisions earth has doesn't have anything to do with its friction free environment. When the solar system formed, there was a lot more stuff flying around, so there were more chances for collisions. But by now, at least in our corner of the universe, things have coalesced somewhat, and reduced the frequency of collisions.

Probably not when gravity accelerates the orbit every year for nearly half the year.

Gravity accelerates the orbit constantly, not just for half the year.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1, I read your post with interest,

I wrote this,

That is a lot of collisions in a friction free environment.

This was a bit of sarcasm for the people how keep telling me that the energy require for planetary orbits came from the original inertia of the planets and give the reason that it is because space is friction less as to why it can sustain momentum. Reading your link, that would be a lot of friction to have a collision big enough to knocked off a bit of earth the size of the moon. I also read some where that the Earth was a piece of the Sun knocked off from a mass colliding with the Sun.
you wrote,

How many collisions earth has doesn't have anything to do with its friction free environment.

Well maybe, you would not expect collisions in a friction free environment on a regular basis, especially if you throw a mass in one end and then expect it to still have its same momentum when it comes out the other end (Now), without another energy input to top it up.

I read some where that in the early time Earth could not sustain water because it was too hot.

After reading the link you posted I conclude that just like most of what I read on the internet, and even the link I posted in my above post, there is more speculation than Fact, humans do that, it is a gift (better to have some idea than no idea) until it is taken as fact.

You wrote,

Gravity accelerates the orbit constantly, not just for half the year.

So which do you think is right? 1. The original inertia of the mass is the only energy input needed to sustain Orbits. Or 2. does Gravity supply some energy input to sustain Orbits by accelerating the Orbiting mass.

[eccentrically1]

1.
The earth is in free fall around the sun if that makes more sense. Why doesn't it fall into the sun, if the sun's gravity is so strong?

Centrifugal acceleration has two components. One component is gravity in this case. The attraction between the earth and the sun, located at their centers. The other component is the motion of the earth (mostly) that is in a orthogonal direction to the gravity component. Orthogonal meaning, 90 degrees from 3 axes, x,y,z. When the two components are vectored together, the result is an orbit, or circular motion. It's not quite a perfect circular orbit, but it's close.

If you change any part of the system, then the components change. If the earth all of a sudden gained speed spontaneously, it would curve farther away from the sun. If it gained enough speed, it would reach a parabolic orbit, and leave the solar system.

So why do we say gravity doesn't do any work on orbiting bodies; it doesn't do work opposing their inertia that would make them leave the solar system?

Here is your answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(phys ... int_forces

You can say this is speculation, but that's your opinion. ;|

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

I fully understand your thinking for choosing 1. that is what I expected it to be.

I would go for 2. Gravity supply's some energy input to sustain Orbits by accelerating the Orbiting mass.

There is no free fall because of the other forces in play mainly centrifugal force, free fall would be a collision with Sun if it was left to gravity alone. the forces in play do have the ability to adjust that is how the orbits was formed, that is with the exception of the original inertia the mass had, and could not be sustain once it surrendered its self to the more dominant forces, that control the speed of the orbit from then on.

To do work takes energy IMO and to sustain orbital paths needs work. There is something not quite right and I cannot put my finger on it, I nearly excepted the popular thinking but could not subscribe to it after I did the mass on a string experiment it did not feel right at all.

Edit, I do not have many issues with know physics, it is manly the work done on orbiting mass that does not seem to ring true, I cannot get my head around the much needed accelerating of mass, does not add up to work done, and the work done against Centrifugal forces is said to do zero work.

My understanding is this, Orbits have the positive accelerating stage wherein gravity does work on the orbiting mass, and that work is converted into added kinetic energy, then the Orbit has negative and stage wherein the added kinetic energy will be used up working against gravity, all the time there would be a varied centrifugal force pulling the orbiting mass outward shaping the forced orbital path. The positive energy converted would be equal to the negative energy used in the Orbit but energy was used to complete the cycle of one Orbit wherein work was done to complete that Orbit (cycle), to moved forward in time.

There seem to be special dynamic interaction with the forces in play in Orbits, something you could not repeat here on Earth wherein the gravity is to strong and would be a Conservative Force, but when there is the interaction between more than one gravity and other forces in play, Gravity's do not act like Conservative Forces.

Near friction less space does not matter to much as we know, because the Earth has regained its momentum after some real big collisions.

Edit 2, the other issue I have with known physics, is I do not think that all paths would be equal, and there is a loop hole, I am not stupid if I thought all paths where equal I would not have a to build list, and a built list. I think I have found a loop hole well more than one, now I have to prove it, thus the to build list.

[primemignonite]

Dear J_M,

I saw the constructed items you provided images for on previous pages and I found them most interesting and, as well, evidenciary in standing-for your claim to be a builder of things, various of things-sundried, extending even to those of housing reconstructions.

In light of all this new and novel informational material I, for one at least, suggest that some persons that (who) had claimed contrarily - to the essential effect or actual assertion even, that you were not or likely were not ever a constructor - were factually in-error and, on this account, therefor are owing unto yourself apologies, as well as some forms of tangible, warranted retraction.

"Rightly, the burden of proof devolves upon the accuser, not the defender."

"Obvious truths need not be proved." - Maxims of Law, translated originals in Latin

(Or, is it that my understanding of all this is incomplete, or, born-of-error even?)

James

[jim_mich]

Hey James, what can I say ???

I was wrongly accused of many things. Facts are facts. I've been a builder of many things my whole life.

I've designed and built more PM devices than I can remember in my old age.

I'll post pictures of my last 'building' project last fall, just before I broke my right arm. My arm is just now becoming usable again.

[primemignonite]

Good, J_M - broken no longer as in crushed the same!

We slightly older ones mend our bones a bit slower than those of the more youthful sprites.

In 1968 I broke my right fifth metacarpal and it was no fun but, once positioned by the doc it mended quickly.

May I ask how you broke yours? (I hit something that I should not have - not a person.)

James