Perpetual Motion is Impossible

[ruggerodk]

the weights cannot be moved without a force or energy input,

Ah, but the weights inside a rotating wheel can be moved without external force or energy.

There are active inertial forces inside any rotating wheel.

Ah, and what causes the initial rotation in the first place . . .?

regards ruggero ;-)

[jim_mich]

Ah, and what causes the initial rotation in the first place . . .?

Well now, are we discussing Bessler's early one-way wheels?
They were started by residual OOB left over as they were being stopped.

Or are we discussing Bessler's later two-way wheels?
They were started with a physical hand push.

In either case, the initial starting force was rather weak, and then as the internal weights start moving in a specific fashion, the motions of the weights cause their motions to grow stronger each cycle.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim,

your quote,

In either case, the initial starting force was rather weak, and then as the internal weights start moving in a specific fashion, the motions of the weights cause their motions to grow stronger each cycle.

You could say the same about a Gravity Wheel, wherein the weights move to keep the wheel in a constant state of imbalance, and gravity would accelerate the imbalance constantly. It is all about the reset, only gravity give us more options.

[jim_mich]

You could say the same about a Gravity Wheel, wherein the weights move to keep the wheel in a constant state of imbalance, and gravity would accelerate the imbalance constantly. It is all about the reset, only gravity give us more options.

I'm sorry, but gravity gives you no options. You talk about reset, which means raising the fallen weights back upward to the top of the wheel. So where does this reset energy come from? It can't come from gravity, because of the conservative nature of gravity.

[ruggerodk]

In either case, the initial starting force was rather weak,...

To conclude; we need an energy input. . .initially.

regards ruggero ;-)

[ME]

I don't see a problem with an initial energy input when a device is able to generate more energy each new rotation.

Besides that, it still needs to be build - which could also count as energy input.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

You could say the same about a Gravity Wheel, wherein the weights move to keep the wheel in a constant state of imbalance, and gravity would accelerate the imbalance constantly. It is all about the reset, only gravity give us more options.

I'm sorry, but gravity gives you no options. You talk about reset, which means raising the fallen weights back upward to the top of the wheel. So where does this reset energy come from? It can't come from gravity, because of the conservative nature of gravity.

Hi Jim- Mich,

Yes Gravity is a conservative Force, and by the same token Angular momentum is conserved, so you are screwed.

Only the mechanical combinations for Gravity wheel are endless. What you are trying is very limited, so the odds are in my favor, and that is before we start with externally driven system. So I am very confident I can build a gravity wheel that works closed loop.

I also feel that gravity needs to be a conservative force to make it work on non-conservative mechanics, because a force is also needed for the reset, and in answer to your question that is where the force or energy comes from for the reset.

In some of my designs the weights never leave the descending side of the wheel because of gravity generated mass momentum.

Jim, What forces or energies do you intend to use to move your weights with?

[perpetualman]

In order for a true gravity wheel to work, do not the weights on either side of the wheel need to be set or reset before they reach the plane of equilibrium? In other words, the weight on the ascending side (MUST) be set in place (before) it reaches the 9 O'clock position, and the weight in the descending side (MUST) be set before it reaches the. 3 O'clock position. Otherwise, the wheel will simply not rotate.

Is this a correct statement?

Perpetualman.

[rlortie]

Perpetualman,

Basically speaking, I would say you are correct. But if you stop and consider that a motion wheel or any design fitting the criteria, must also meet the same conditions. How do the differ?

You must either move the weight or through motion remove its mass properties from the ascending side, making the descent heavier either through leverage or oscillatory motion.

Leverage does not seem to be the answer, all attempts leave you with the commonly called "Height for Width" conundrum'.

The sooner (before nine and three) you can displace the density the more efficient your attempt will be. I desire the action to take place between 4:30 and complete no later than 7:30.

Ralph

[ME]

For an overbalanced wheel the path of the weight must deviate from a perfect circular motion, if it doesn't it will be a flywheel (assuming more than one mechanism).
A perfect overbalance is where the ascending side takes a path closer to the axle, and the descending side further away. In this way the Center of Mass for the whole path is shifted towards the descending side, and get maximum torque.
One gets the maximum Torque when the weight is raised two times 180 degrees apart along the path (from outer to inner, and back) - any where.
One could deviate from that perfect vertical, but torque will deviate as much.


...as far as I know.

[jim_mich]

Marchello, what you describe is a perfect gravity-wheel, rotated by weights "a little more distant from the centre than the others"

This is how Bessler described such a wheel...

Nun die Nachricht (deucht mich) ist gut,
Dem, der sie fein einfassen thut;
Denn manche Möb’lemacher denken,
Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lenken,
Heraus ein wenig weiter hier
Als dort – o! so wird’s lauffen schier;
Ich habe dieses selbst erfahren
Mit lauter Müh’ vor vielen Jahren,
Bis mich das wahre Sprichwort schlug:
Ein jeder wird mit Schaden klug. x
Drum steckt im mechanischen Grunde
Noch viel verborgen diese Stunde;
Doch weil mich keine Noht hier treibt,
Von mir mehr Nachricht unterbleibt.

Now the message (thinks me) is good,
To him, who they good grasp do;
because some Mobile-makers think
when their stuff themselves 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.
That's why stuck in mechanical basis/rationale
Still much hidden this hour;
But because me no need here push,
From me more message omitted.

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one
further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent
need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment.

Paraphrasing, Bessler says that the message just previously disclosed is good to him who can get a good grasp on it, because some mobile-makes think an unbalanced wheel (weights further out here as there) should surely run. Bessler than writes that he learned about this many years prior from nothing but toil. Bessler then quotes a proverb which means you must learn from your errors.

Note that JC' AP talks about being clear. Bessler is often not very clear. Leaving you to use intelligence to understand.

Some claim that Bessler is saying he learned his PM solution by his hard toil. But the time-line is wrong. Bessler says he learn this many years before (vor vielen Jahren), which puts him learning this long before he discovered perpetual motion. It puts him learning this back closer to the time when he was first seeking PM.

Bessler observation that moving weights out father can't work agrees with modern science, which uses this fact to bash PM wheel seekers, since the vast majority of such seekers attempt to harness gravity.

[ME]

Yup... gravity is slightly problematic.
I'm a bit stuck at this...

A mechanism will do nothing when it can't loose potential, and it will only act in the direction where it can loose it more quickly. It doesn't matter if it is the mechanism or the attached wheel has to move... it will always loose potential anyway. (while determined earlier it had to gain potential)

Therefore the best overbalanced wheel is a flywheel: you know, that wheel where nothing moves.

The possible sidestep could be where mechanisms don't move because of gravity, but because they are already moving and redirected vortex-wise; but I guess that would still require energy.

I'm looking forward to the insights of your (jim_mitch's) motionwheel, rlortie's waterwheel or other concepts hiding somewhere behind the horizon.

[eccentrically1]

Marchello, in the past, I've attempted to explain that a motion wheel is not totally constrained by thermodynamic laws. TD laws forbid spontaneous transfer of heat from colder mass (having less KE) to warmer mass (having greater KE). Such just does not ever happen in a spontaneous manner. Energy input is required such as by using a heat pump.

But there exists a very simple mechanical arrangement (Bessler's principle of PM) whereby a slower moving weight (with less KE) can spontaneously transfer much of its motion to a faster (with greater KE) moving weight. Momentum is transferred. Thus momentum is conserved.

As an example. Assume you have two weights moving a same speed. Transfer momentum from one weight to the other weight. This can be done spontaneously in a rotating environment of a wheel with little or no effect on the rotation. Do the math. Assume both weights were moving at say 20 feet/second and both weights have a same mass of two units. The weight's KE is 1/2 × 2_mass × V^2. Since 1/2 × 2 equal 1, we can make the formula very simple as KE = V^2. Thus KE of each weight equals 20^2 = 400 KE units. Total KE combined of two weights is 800 KE units.

Now one weight spontaneously gives up half its velocity to the other weight.
Weight #1 V = 10 ft/s. Its KE = 10^2 = 100 KE units.
Weight #2 v = 30 ft/s. Its KE = 30^2 = 900 KE units.
Total KE combined of two weights is 1000 KE units.

Thus we gained 200 KE units simply by allowing motion to transfer from a weight that is slowing down to a weight that is speeding up. We added no energy. Momentum was conserved. The weights changed their velocities spontaneously without consuming any energy. Thermodynamic Laws forbid KE from spontaneously transferring from cold material to warmer material. But there is no physics law that prevents motion from transferring from slower weight to faster weight. Of course such requires certain specific circumstances, which are Bessler's secret principle of perpetual motion.

There are physics laws that prevent the motion transfer from re-occurring, though. It's a one shot occurrence, the same as a gravity wheel. I'm surprised you don't see that. I guess you will when you try it.
How big is your wheel diameter? How much will it weigh?

[jim_mich]

There are physics laws that prevent the motion transfer from re-occurring, though. It's a one shot occurrence, the same as a gravity wheel. I'm surprised you don't see that. I guess you will when you try it.

This is your opinion. You don't know the design. There are no physics laws that prevent the motion from re-occurring. But you'd need to see the mechanisms to understand this.

Your thinking of this a being just a one shot deal is only your opinion or guess.

After all, we are seeking what is said to be impossible, right?

How big is your wheel diameter?

49 inches.

How much will it weigh?

Since I changed the materials for some parts, I've lost track of the wheel's estimated weight. It's somewhere in the range of 120 lbs. About right for two men to heft. The weights themselves are about 83 lbs total. The wheel and mechanisms are maybe 40 lbs?

The A-frame stand is about 50 lbs and of a size such that it can hold multiple wheels. The A-frame can be folder or dis-assembled for transporting to the PTO for examination in Virginia. The wheel can be slid off from the shaft, also for transporting.

Please don't hold me to these weights since they are from memory of calculation I did some months back.

[eccentrically1]

897 parts is a lot. How many of that 897 are related to the action (i.e. not part of the frame or axle)?