Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[ovyyus]

It's my fact based opinion that pillocks are as pillocks do.

[daxwc]

Jim:

Now stop treating me like I'm some sort of 'pillock'. Shame on you. Show some respect.

Why Jim? When was the last time you showed anybody any respect on the forum? You treat everybody like they are beneath you. Is it really a surprise to you that no one likes pompous, narcissistic and haughty personalities?

[jim_mich]

Why Jim? When was the last time you showed anybody any respect on the forum? You treat everybody like they are beneath you. Is it really a surprise to you that no one likes pompous, narcissistic and haughty personalities?

I can't help it if I'm smarter than most of you. Not better than you. Not more important than you. Simply a higher IQ. I've done more and accomplished more in my lifetime than most people do in four lifetimes. That is fact. And you call it being pompous, narcissistic and haughty? If that's the way you see it, then that's your problem, not mine.

Again, show some respect, rather than dragging things down into the mud of calling people names.

Why is it some members focus on posting personal attacks rather than discussing Bessler related topics? Grimmer attacked me. Now daxwc attacks me. What am I, your football, to be kicked around?

[eccentrically1]

And no amount of seeking a motion solution will produce a Bessler motion wheel. Such goes against the very exact same laws of nature. There aren't two sets of laws of nature, one set that shows it possible, and another set that shows it impossible. Thus Bessler's wheel had to be a clever disguise.

You are correct. There aren't two sets of Laws. I've never claimed two sets of laws. But PM is IMPOSSIBLE by means of gravity. That's a scientific fact.

On the other hand, nature's laws do not forbid a motion wheel, contrary to your harping about it. Just because you don't know the motion-solution does not make Bessler's wheel a clever disguise.

Now stop treating me like I'm some sort of 'pillock'. Shame on you. Show some respect.

Show us the laws of nature that don't forbid a motion wheel.
Respect is earned first, shown second.
I prefer not to boast about my IQ or accomplishments to defend physics laws.

[jim_mich]

Show us the laws of nature that don't forbid a motion wheel.
Respect is earned first, shown second.

First off, you eccentrically1, have not done anything to earn my respect.

Second, read again what you requested of me. I think you incorrectly worded your request. Many laws of nature have nothing to do with a motion-wheel. Thus they neither forbid nor deny a motion-wheel. For instance, natures laws concerning electricity have nothing to do with any purely mechanical PM wheel. And natures laws concerning thermodynamic conservation of energy have nothing to do with a purely mechanical motion-wheel.

So which laws of nature are you asking about? Newton's laws of motion? An object at rest remains at rest (inertia) and an object in motion remains in motion (momentum), in both cases, until a force causes a change of motion of the object. Such a law is the basis of a motion-wheel. Newton's laws of motion do not forbid a motion-wheel. Actually, they support the concept of a motion wheel.

[daxwc]

Jim:

"I can't help it if I'm smarter than most of you. Not better than you. Not more important than you. Simply a higher IQ. I've done more and accomplished more in my lifetime than most people do in four lifetimes."

I think I threw up a little in my mouth with that statement.


Can you really not see what you have turned into?

[eccentrically1]

First off, you eccentrically1, have not done anything to earn my respect.

Second, read again what you requested of me. I think you incorrectly worded your request. Many laws of nature have nothing to do with a motion-wheel. Thus they neither forbid nor deny a motion-wheel. For instance, natures laws concerning electricity have nothing to do with any purely mechanical PM wheel. And natures laws concerning thermodynamic conservation of energy have nothing to do with a purely mechanical motion-wheel.

So which laws of nature are you asking about? Newton's laws of motion? An object at rest remains at rest (inertia) and an object in motion remains in motion (momentum), in both cases, until a force causes a change of motion of the object. Such a law is the basis of a motion-wheel. Newton's laws of motion do not forbid a motion-wheel. Actually, they support the concept of a motion wheel.

1.And you haven't earned respect either.

2. You were the one who said

On the other hand, nature's laws do not forbid a motion wheel, contrary to your harping about it.

If you say nature's laws don't forbid a motion wheel, how am I then incorrectly wording the request "Show us the laws that don't forbid a motion wheel"?
Just because there are laws that don't pertain to motion doesn't mean there aren't laws that "forbid" it. (Your words , not mine.)
If you don't think the conservation of energy law applies to a motion wheel, that's your problem. Until you can show it doesn't apply, either by argument or other means, your opinion remains based on science fiction.

Newton's laws don't support the concept of a motion wheel.
Objects in motion constantly lose motion in the form of thermal energy (for one type) to their environment - frictional forces. If it isn't replaced by a source of energy external to the system, the motion stops. Nothing has ever been shown to violate this. It's the "forbidding" thermodynamic law that is implied in Newton's law.

I'm really getting tired of typing the same argument over and over. It must mean I'm a pillock,lol.

[Kirk]

the frame of reference is key. Relative to what is the question. Studying an "equivalent" may give insight.

ke=1/2 mv2

charge on a capacitor = 1/2 cv2

Been cogitating on this and I believe they are equivalent formulas.
They both describe increased "tension" be it electron potential or kinetic energy.

Therefore 2 coils to transfer the momentum would be interesting. You ise the strongest permanent magnet material you can get your hands on and drop the large magnet through the hole in coil A. A magnet half the mass is in Coil B. How well can the force be coupled?

[Kirk]

the coils are the "lever"

[ME]

I think you incorrectly worded your request.

How can a mechanism cause an increase in potential energy?
- even in case the mechanism itself is unaffected by gravity.

[jim_mich]

If you don't think the conservation of energy law applies to a motion wheel, that's your problem. Until you can show it doesn't apply, either by argument or other means, your opinion remains based on science fiction.

The conservation of energy law is a thermodynamic law. Many people assume it applies outside of thermodynamics. It does not. It deals with conversion of heat into motion, and motion into heat. This includes combustion, chemical reactions, etc. But there is no conservation of kinetic energy.

Much of the time, Kinetic energy comes into existence from nature, from outside of objects. For instance, assume two equal weights traveling toward each other.

And you ride the first weight. And the second weight hits the first weight. You will say the second weight supplied the KE of the collision.

Again, same example, except you ride the second weight. And the first weight hits the second weight. You will say the first weight supplied the KE of the collision.

You can repeat the example with you stationary, and both weights hit each other at a same speed. So now you will say both weights supplied the KE of the collision.

Now tell me, which weight supplied the energy of the collision? The answer is, neither weight. Nature supplied the energy. During the collision the weights changed their motions or they changed their heat content, depending whether the collision was elastic or inelastic.

Another example, two equal moving weights. The first weight transfers all of its momentum to the second weight. The first weight ends up with zero speed. The speed of the second weight has doubled. The total KE of the two weights has doubled. Where did the extra KE come from? It was supplied by nature. The universe supplied the increased KE.

Oh, if your perspective if from the second weight, then it is the first weight that doubled its KE.

-------

If you say nature's laws don't forbid a motion wheel, how am I then incorrectly wording the request "Show us the laws that don't forbid a motion wheel"?

This is like me saying, "State laws don't forbid farm markets." And you ask me. "Show us the laws that don't forbid farm markets." Don't you see the silliness of you request? There are no laws that forbid farm markets. Just like there are no laws that forbid a motion-wheel.

And, yes, eccentrically1, you might be a pillock.

[jim_mich]

How can a mechanism cause an increase in potential energy?
- even in case the mechanism itself is unaffected by gravity.

Just wait, all will be disclosed.

[AB Hammer]

daxwc

Personally I feel we all have our moments in this game. So for some levity here is the perfect song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYKWch_MNY0

[Kirk]

Probably better than this one AB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaEAinJMwHI

[Kirk]

the coils are the "lever"

Analogous to resistance in the coil. But the lever doesn't get less massive with cold but the coil does. Sitting on dry ice it may be very low R.

I assume if you need iron to close the path it is essential you avoid saturation.

Just what is the work efficiencies of these devices? I hear 90 percent is commercial in motors, so an 81 percent efficient magnetic "lever" is more than adequate for the task.