Perpetual Motion is Impossible

[rlortie]

Me.

Your hypothesis brings to mind the dissertations by William Kenrick basically regarding molecular motion.

Title: An account of the automaton, constructed by Orffyreus: in two letters; the one, from Professor 'sGravesande, to Sir Isaac Newton; the other from Baron Fischer, to Dr. Desaguliers. To which is annexed the testimonial of the Prince of Hesse Cassel, ... likewise animadversions, by Professor Allaman of Leyden, ...
Author: Kenrick, W. (William), 1725?-1779.
Collection: Eighteenth Century Collections Online
Table of contents | Add to bookbag
Previous PageNext Page
ADVERTISEMENT.Shortly will be Published, AN ESSAY ON MOTION: BEING AN INTRODUCTION TO A NEW SYSTEM OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.WHEREIN The Elementary principles assumed by Sir Isaac Newton, are mechani|cally deduced from Elements still more general and simple.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004818 ... ;view=text

EDIT: Jump to page six for opening letter.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ME,

The problem with gravity wheels, is people give up before they even get to the next level, I will never forget when I first found the MT drawings, because I had build most of them, so it seem that we go over old ground without even knowing. I think Bessler may not have disclosed his wheel because it was to close to other designs that was not his own, all he did was increase the weights efficiency by the way he connected them, once he got his money it would be to late for the failed inventors to jump on to his bandwagon, Bessler had seen something in their designs that they did not, mainly because Bessler already had known what he was looking for. Bessler had found his designs where others had looked.

I have a couple of builds I will be building after Christmas day and then I can show you what I am working on. Next year I hope to be posting my to build list on it own thread, and on its own page of my web site, then all the good stuff will not get buried because my wed site will be linked on each post, my web page would be a edited on topic copy from the forum discussion on each device, if I can find the time.

What you suggest on your above post is the best way of building a wheel, measure every parts forces in every degree and every inch of travel then repeat with the next part, if it is graphed out it would be easy to see what is work and what is killing it.

I wish I could build like that, I normally get a idea draw it out on paper, look what stuff I have most of, and scale it to that, then build it in pairs and get my hook scales out and take a rough measurements as pull the wheel around. With hind sight I have never built a build properly yet.

The best thing I do now, is video them, every video I have looked back on later I can see how I should have built them differently, but by that time I have moved on to the next build. I now have nearly as many rebuilds as I have new builds and have too many builds on my to build list.

Rant,

Under funding is the main problem with most builders here, it would be great if we could put together a team that was funded by someone who could look at it as a long term investment, but that is not going to happen. Ideas are cheap it is taking them to the next stage that is the problem.

I never get the time or the materials to build what I want how I want, a build should take weeks of full on building and improving then a proper build of a working model. Most of my builds would not run for long because they are something I have knocked up just to prove or disprove the principle.

[ME]

Ralph, thanks for the link.

Couldn't find a reference to "molecular motion" though.

Perhaps your point is (?):

Mathematicians indeed have demonstrated the fallacy of the schemes generally pursued by pretenders to this discovery; most of whom have been mistaken in the fundamental principles of Statics. But the demonstrations of the Mathematicians.

Yeah well, perhaps I oversimplified the situation...But I guess I'm not mistaken.
Especially compared with:

PREUVE de la possibilité du mouvement perpétuel, en supposant que la force du corps en mouvement est proportionelle à la masse multipliée par la vitesse.
--
PROOF of the possibility of perpetual motion, assuming that the force of the moving body is proportional to mass times the speed.

The rest of 'sGravensande proposal is an interesting. (needs a reread).

Other highlights:

Mais c'etoit une de ces fols, tels qu'on a voit souvent, dont la folie se borne à certains objets, & mériteroit plûtôt le nomme de bizarrerie. Une telle folie est quelques fois accompagnée de beaucoup de génie, & quand des gens de ce caractère s'appliquent a une seul chose, comme il paroit que celui-ci a fait, il n'est pas surprenant de leur voir faire des decouvertes qui ont échappé à la sagacité de plus habiles gens.
- - -
'sGravensande agrees with Mr. de Crousaz of Bessler being a bit crazy when smashing his machine on two separate occasions for no good reason:

But it was one of those fools, as we often see, who obsess over certain objects, and would actually deserve idiotic names. Such madness is sometimes accompanied by a lot of genius, and when you ask such character one thing, or so it seems, it is not surprising to see them make discoveries which escaped the ingenuity of more skilled people.

I guess Bessler was considered a bit autistic/asperger (although not invented at that time)

He does not insist that the Rotator is what every mathematician would call a perpetual motion; being perfectly of 'sGravesand's opinion that it is of little consequence in mecha|nics, whether the perpetual motion, strictly so called, be possible or not: but if his machine be found to answer all the practical purposes to be expected from that discovery; so as to save the expence, and obviate the inconveniences, attending the present methods of working mills, pumps and other mechanical en|gines, he will expect his reward.

As in: If you think it works then pay up, and you may call it whatever you want.

What you suggest on your above post is the best way of building a wheel, measure every parts forces in every degree and every inch of travel then repeat with the next part, if it is graphed out it would be easy to see what is work and what is killing it.

I wish I could build like that

That's how I simulate most things...
Often a simple spreadsheet table does the trick, and a macro to find an optimum (depending on the used formulas);
When that doesn't work or is too complicated I create a specialized program. The time to initial result is a matter of hours up till a few day.
Unfortunately I had only a few glitches being worth a build or a partial confirmation.
So most investment I personally need are: Time, great ideas, and the ability to redraw, understand, and simulate. If that goes well: I'll build.

I guess a reasonable investor needs some prior knowledge and good hopes for success before spending money. So you'll need at least eeehm... something that works (with high probability proof).

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Me,

I lack the computer skills, so it is easier for me to build a model, the hard part is making room in my x wife's "landladies" garage it full of junk and its the wrong junk, wherein you could not make a wheel out of it, not like my junk, she treats me like she own the place

ME wrote,

I guess a reasonable investor needs some prior knowledge and good hopes for success before spending money. So you'll need at least eeehm... something that works (with high probability proof).

To be honest does not help either. I did try the government route though, but that was a paper chase, the time I lost there I could have another 4 builds done. I think Bessler plan is better, cover the wheel and sell the secret, maybe sell at a lower price to buy a house with a work shop, with enough left over to make units for the home market.

But that is forgetting rule one, first get something that work.

And then there is rule two, make sure it is cost effective and market friendly, I will get there in the end, only in third or forth place.

I also have a backup plan, I do the lottery {;-)

[WaltzCee]

I'd like to put this thread back on track.

The main question is: what is a perpetual motion anyway?

The literal explanation is that it should rotate forever... until the mechanism breaks down (Could mechanical wear & tear be considered entropy?).

All them fancy words, shucks. Let's just stick with one word: Perpetual. What does it mean? Here's my take, from everlasting to everlasting. Forever. Infinity squared.

If one could actually make an eternal motion unconstrained by mechanical failure could it survive our sun going supernova? Or would that be the end of it?

Could it survive the universe as it goes thru the big crunch (what happens after a big bang)? Some have suggested if it could move on it's own for weeks on end it would be "perpetual" enough.

Hell, you've done that. Are you perpetual?

[eccentrically1]

The universe itself is expected to expand indefinitely, resulting in heat death; no motion.

A PM machine is impossible for different reasons. The main reason is energy can't be created, only converted or transformed. This includes kinetic energy, contrary to what jim says.
The best we can hope for for Bessler's wheel is it was utilizing an external energy source, which in his time was considered perpetual motion.

[ME]

WalzCee, then you didn't understand my hypothesis.

As suggested Energy is basically an act of momentum.
Because otherwise it is too easy to overlook the source.

For example:
Friction forces which happen when things move and rotate are created by colliding, gliding and rubbing surfaces. Those forces manifest themselves as heat (infrared radiation), static electricity (coulomb forces), adhesion (when surfaces are so smooth even the molecules can't tell them apart - and try to stay coherent as a single solid - aka cold welt)... etc

Those forces and energies are actual particles doing work, even light has a mass-momentum equivalent.

A transfer of energy can only be in the range of 0 to 100%. And suppose it has lost all it's momentum it can't transfer any more. It has to wait for a donation.
So when energy radiates away (heat), or the power is tapped (electricity) there should exist an actual cascading transfer of something from somewhere.

When a Perpetual motion device creates energy, that momentum has to come from somewhere. Without knowing how it works there are some possibilities.

• It eats itself away, and will always break under stress of lost integrity;-so simply make it from less destructible material;
• When a gravity particle would exist; things get lighter above the device, and convection of matter could be observed - don't worry no gravity particles;
• It tries to find an equilibrium with the environment, and the environment cools down; - Such thing could actually happen when a PM could generate a gradient - but that requires energy, not create it;
• It steals momentum from the earth (we can tap ocean currents); - This could become problematic with large scale usage -
• ....<unknown>

[pequaide]

Not just Jim said energy can be made; but Newtonian physics says it as well, and I have experiments that prove that Newton was correct.

Newton's debate with Leibniz makes it clear that Newton was 100% against the concept of energy conservation. Professors teach a history of physics that promotes their own concepts. But the truth is that Newton is on our side not yours.

[jim_mich]

Bessler discusses the meaning of perpetual motion. He readily admits that no physical device can be truly perpetually everlasting. Materials wear out and decay. Thus, Bessler's definition was a machine capable of self-rotation until it wore out or mechanically malfunctioned. He also made it clear that there were no wound up energy sources that needed to be replenished. Bessler wrote the weights in his wheel gained force from their motions.

[eccentrically1]

One of the other reasons is because of thermal energy losses, that can't be reversed, or reduced to zero. A PM machine would vaporize over time.

The tests of Bessler's wheels were inadequate. There are a lot of questions about their power and weight, and energy losses over time. The controversy of the number and range of approximations for them is difficult to resolve. If we applied Occam's razor, with the best evidence we have, considering all of it, they were at the low end of the range in all categories. Which should support an open system, not a closed system that gained mass from nowhere to replace friction.

[jim_mich]

There is no conservation of KINETIC energy law. This can be proven. Take any two equal moving objects. Transfer the MOMENTUM from one object to the other thus increasing the momentum and KE of one object and decreasing the momentum and KE of the other object. Now the total momentum will be conserved. But the total KE will have increased.

Ectropy is a word that means the usable harnessable energy of a system. If you have a wheel with weights inside and NO GRAVITY, then assuming the weights are moving same speed as the wheel, they have zero ectropy, they have no energy or ability to push the wheel rotation. But if you can get these weights to oscillating (using no gravity) then you can use the oscillations to rotate the wheel. The oscillations will be momentum conservative. But the KE of the weights will not be conservative. There is no conservation of KE law. Do the research. Such a physics law does not exist. You will instead be told there is a conservation of (thermodynamic) energy law. And I agree that in thermodynamic situations there is conservation when heat converts to work and back again.

[eccentrically1]

But the conservation of momentum law would be violated. Where would the extra momentum originate? It's not from inertia, or the weights would gain actual mass, more lead atoms in this case. Put on weight like a person. It's not from leverage of centrifugal forces, those are part of an equation, and another machine subject to friction.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi WaltzCee,

All them fancy words, shucks. Let's just stick with one word: Perpetual. What does it mean? Here's my take, from everlasting to everlasting. Forever. Infinity squared.

Nothing can live up to word Perpetual not even the Universe. That was the conclusion of my Thread The Big Question.

The definition of Perpetual Motion does help.

"The motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear."

It does not say what is allowed to drive it, and bearings would not last forever, so it could be done, but only with a constant force or energy input. So Gravity Wheels could fit the definition. because they could be sealed off from the environment and still run.


http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5917

[pequaide]

Jim: yes but why limit yourself to small increases in energy.

I will use an experiment that is not my own; even though I totally back my own experiments. I will use the Dawn Mission experiment.

The spinning Dawn Mission rocket had a mass of 1460 to a thrown mass of 3 kilograms; (just from memory). It was not rim mass so lets round that to 1200 kilograms at the average radius. Lets say you have an arch motion of 1 m/sec for the spinning mass of the rocket. That would be 1200 units of momentum. For 3 kilograms to have 1200 units of momentum it will have to have a velocity of 400 m/sec. So after the total transfer of motion to the 3 kilograms (the rocket is no longer spinning) the thrown masses have all the motion; and all the momentum; and all of the energy.

The momentum remains the same as in all experiments ever done.

The energy is ½ * 1200kg *1m/sec *1m/sec = 600 joules at the start of motion transfer and;

The energy is ½ * 3kg * 400m/sec * 400m/sec = 240,000 joules when the masses are released.

Most people just can not comprehend this large an increase; but it is simply Newtonian Physics; and I think that is exactly what happens. I have achieved 400% many times.

The more motion removed from the wheel the larger the increase in energy. Bessler's wheel was not noted to slow down; therefore he must not have been removing much motion from the wheel at any one time. That would mean his energy increases would have been small. But there is no reason for small increases because all the motion can be removed from the wheel.

The greater the difference in mass between the wheel and the thrown or flipped mass; the greater the increases in energy. The gray cylinder and spheres produces 450% and the Dawn Mission produced 40,000%.

[ME]

Not just "X" said energy can be made; but "Y" says it as well, and "I" have experiments that prove that "Y" was correct.

"Y" debate with "Z" makes it clear that "Y" was 100% against the concept of energy conservation. "W" teach a history of physics that promotes their own concepts. But the truth is that "Y" is on side "A" not "B".

That's funny!!! It is no contest... and thus no "side".

The only contest there could be: Who's the first to show a successful PM experiment.
While the main question is: There is simply no contest when PM is impossible.
Disprove this and one has won if you like. But there's still no side.

[Dawn mission] ---> whatever it did, it did wonderfully.... one form of motion transformed to another, which detached, is gone and can't be reversed. How would that be an experiment in creating energy?