Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[pequaide]

So Leibniz knew (“so long as the masses did not interact�) that his Kinetic Energy would not be conserved if the masses interact. So I guess our argument is not with Leibniz:he knew that his formula could not be applied to the despin devices of a sounding rocket.

Kepler's angular momentum (r²) is applied only to objects under gravitational acceleration such as comets and other satellites. The sounding rocket does not pull the end masses in with gravity so Kepler's angular momentum does not apply.

So Leibniz defers to Newton; and Newton knew that for interactions not accelerated by gravity the formula is (arc mv in) equals (arc mv out).

[ME]

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.

It always takes longer than expected...

[jim_mich]

Jim you need to sweeten the bitter pill of ageing before you become an angry, cynical and senile old man.

Betrayed by your good looks, betrayed by society, betrayed by your employer, betrayed by your country, betrayed by people that loved you, betrayed by friends, betrayed by your own body, betrayed by time, betrayed by luck, betrayed by your mind and most painful of all betrayed by your dreams; getting old could just kill a man.

"But old folks, many feign as they were dead;
Unwieldy, slow, heavy and pale as lead." - Romeo and Juliet

The first day of the rest of your life starts tomorrow. It is never too late. 8)

Daxwc, let me put this very clear... Shut up with your f'ing psycho-babble.

[justsomeone]

Dax, too late!!! 😉

[ME]

Kepler's angular momentum (r²) is applied only to objects under gravitational acceleration such as comets and other satellites. The sounding rocket does not pull the end masses in with gravity so Kepler's angular momentum does not apply.

I don't know about rockets, but Kepler's laws only apply when orbits can be mathematically mapped onto some cone intersection...which is either practically never the case or the errors negligible; but useful when due to measurement inaccuracies the real path can't be determined.

[eccentrically1]

So Leibniz knew (“so long as the masses did not interact�) that his Kinetic Energy would not be conserved if the masses interact. So I guess our argument is not with Leibniz:he knew that his formula could not be applied to the despin devices of a sounding rocket.

Kepler's angular momentum (r²) is applied only to objects under gravitational acceleration such as comets and other satellites. The sounding rocket does not pull the end masses in with gravity so Kepler's angular momentum does not apply.

So Leibniz defers to Newton; and Newton knew that for interactions not accelerated by gravity the formula is (arc mv in) equals (arc mv out).

No. Both formulas are right, conservation of energy doesn't defer to conservation of momentum. Both are conserved simultaneously in all systems, under any conditions.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E 1,
so in a friction free environment if you lift a lever up then your kinetic energy input is transformed into PE, and the energy you would get from its fall is equal to the energy it took to lift the lever up, so far so good, so when the earth is accelerated its PE is converted into more kinetic energy, so where is the extra energy coming from that is needed to lift this planetary lever back up, gravity is inputting energy in, to accelerate this planetary lever, which is then used up to gain distance ( PE ) and has to be replaced again, just like lifting the lever.

Why does the earth need the acceleration part of the Orbital cycle anyway? It needs it because the Sun is moving forward in time, and the earth has to move forward in time with the Sun.

A more simple explanation for the above, energy is put in, and then taken away again, used to move the Orbit forward in time and place. I take it this constant moving forward is taken care of in the formulas.

I reserve the right to see things differently, while still seeing things how other people see them, and understand why they see things like that.

Sorry about this post, the devil made me do it!

Edit, change sentence, to remove the word, lost, and add used, (used to move the Orbit forward in time and place) plus add (and place.)

[eccentrically1]

The energy is converted from GPE to KE and back, but it doesn't get "lost". It remains in the Solar system. Do you know why the sun is moving forward in time?

[daxwc]

Jim:

Daxwc, let me put this very clear... Shut up with your f'ing psycho-babble.

Well, you took it better than I thought you would Jim, but somebody had to tell you. I didn’t for a second think a master manipulator would take a dose of reality without some lashing out. From the members of the forum’s perspective you have become an intolerant, angry, cynical and senile old man; a shell of your former self.

Your intolerance of gravity based topics needs to stop. Everybody knows where you stand on the issue you don’t have to interject and try to humiliate those exercising their right to an opinion or discussion. If you don’t have nothing new on momentum wheels or something positive to engage in, then leave your contribution in the bedpan.

[jim_mich]

Your intolerance of gravity based topics needs to stop.

I don't have an intolerance of gravity based topic. Feel free to go seek a gravity wheel. Bessler said that you would be seeking in vain.

Daxwc, your intolerance of motion wheels needs to stop.

This web site strives to shed light on the Bessler mystery through an exchange of ideas among enthusiasts, dabblers, believers, skeptics, critics, and all who share a fascination with the "impossible."

I'm a skeptic of gravity wheels. I know that a gravity wheel will never work.
I'm a believer of Bessler's wheels. It seems that Bessler found perpetual motion.

And you, daxwc, are being an ass by telling me to not post.

[cloud camper]

What I find puzzling in all this is that a man of such elevated intelligence by
his own admission and possessing the exact Bessler blueprints cannot seem
to find a way over a period of years to build a wheel that was so simple that a carpenter's boy could easily construct?

[justsomeone]

No Jim, Bessler did not say if you seek a wheel driven by gravity, all your work will be in vain. That is not true and I would think that a man of your superior intelligence would know that wasn't true. Go ahead, twist away!

[daxwc]

Jim:

Daxwc, your intolerance of motion wheels needs to stop.

I have no special intolerance of motion wheels over my intolerance of gravity wheels.



Jim:

This web site strives to shed light on the Bessler mystery through an exchange of ideas among enthusiasts, dabblers, believers, skeptics, critics, and all who share a fascination with the "impossible."

Jim you should read that yourself and take your own medicine, since you think eccentrically1 should go elsewhere. There is nothing worse than a manipulating hypocrite that likes to bully members opinions.



Jim:

And you, daxwc, are being an ass by telling me to not post.

So I am an ass; big hairy ass deal. I have to suppress people like you everyday at work Jim. There isn't many manipulating techniques I havn't seen, so go ahead. You should really take some good advice and strive to become the person you were 10 years ago.

[ME]

I'm a skeptic of gravity wheels. I know that a gravity wheel will never work.
I'm a believer of Bessler's wheels. It seems that Bessler found perpetual motion.

I don't know... proof and/or reference please?

But how does this whole opera balance?

On the one side:
We still don't know Jim's theory... Probably because of his tendency to get easily distracted by some extremely annoying noise makers (I don't care if they're right or wrong in doing so).

On the other side:
Until we know how this motionwheel-theory is put together, it's basically just another case of "I HAVE SOME (x) and you don't get/have it, but I know you want at least a part of it !!".
(x) could be: Perpetual motion, Knowledge, Intelligence, Money, Fame, Glory, Integrity, Moon, Mountain tops, Golden egg laying geese... etc - all kinds of things we normally should respect when really True and only accomplished with a lot of effort and thus extremely rare - a declining and rare trade by itself anyway.

The fulcrum:
It's OK not to share -that's ones own prerogative- but please don't try to use it as bait, carrot, ego-boost, attention, lure or whatever reason: it's simply annoying.
But if you want to share then perhaps you could use your own sub-forum where (I guess) you can moderate all you want.

[jim_mich]

No Jim, Bessler did not say if you seek a wheel driven by gravity, all your work will be in vain. That is not true and I would think that a man of your superior intelligence would know that wasn't true. Go ahead, twist away!

justsomeone, Bessler in AP said to note well...

He would a great artist be_called,
Who a heavy thing lightly high can throw,
And when a pound a quarter falls,
it four pounds four quarters high shoots.

Bessler is replying to Wagner's concept of an out-of-balance gravity-rotated wheel.

Anybody from this can speculate,
would soon the running perpetuate;
Anybody however this still not know;
then is in vain all their diligence and hard_work;

The critical phrase here is "Anybody however this still not know;"

Bessler is writing about one pound lifting four pounds.

If you could make one pound lift four pound, then YES, from this you can speculate that your wheel would soon perpetual its rotating.

But if you still don't know (that one pound will only lift one pound) then all your work seeking PM is in vain.

Now the message (thinks me) is good,
To_him, who they good a_grasp do;
because some Möbile-makers think
when their stuff themself just guide
Out a little further here
as there - oh! so wouldst run purely;
I have this even learned
with nothing_but toil prior many years,
to me the true proverb suggest:
One each would with loss (get) smart.

Worded differently, the proverb means: That one has to learn through bitter experience.

So what was Bessler's good message for those who can grasp it?

The answer: Some mobile makes try to make OOB wheels, which they think will surely run.

The moral of the story is that seekers must learn the bitter truth by their own experience that OOB wheels don't work.

Bessler explained earlier in this same Chapter 43 of AP, that his wheel works by the in and out motions of its weights. Those motions cause the weights to gain force.

So, justsomeone, you have a choice. Stick you fingers in your ears and close your eyes. Or read Bessler's writings with an open mind. Many here of the forum have closed minds. Are you one of them? Or do you wrongly insist that I'm twisting Bessler's words.