Perpetual Motion is Impossible

[eccentrically1]

The dawn mission spacecraft is about 2.3 meters long, and was spun down from 36 rpm to 3 rpm in the opposite direction by releasing 3 kg of weights on the ends of 12 meter cables.
I think pequaide's math is wrong.

[eccentrically1]

I can't find how much the cables weighed, but they would need to be part of the calculation.

[WaltzCee]

Hello Trevor

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

Had I known there was such a thread, I'd of called this one "The Big Answer".

That nothing "can live up to word Perpetual" is somewhat the answer. I'd suggest since science seems to want to exclude The Creator from their analysis of Creation they'll never arrive at the truth. Never.

If you want to define perpetual short of The Almighty then anything is possible.

God Almighty is perpetual; from everlasting to everlasting.

He's my Abba. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills!

[pequaide]

it is diameter not length; 'opposite direction' means it stopped. The math is functionally correct.

[MrVibrating]

Not read this thread yet, but hope it's been established that perpetual motion is the first law of mechanics.

PM is the default state of things. It's what happens unless something else stops it from happening.

The question this thread is really asking concerns classical asymmetries - are they possible?

"Asymmetry" here refers to the balance of inbound vs outbound force * distance integrals - it is self-evident that closed loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy; and this is what determines classical symmetry.

By definition then, an "asymmetric interaction" implies a closed loop trajectory through a time-varying field. Equal inbound and outbound displacements can only have unequal energies if the force fields are changing - freely - between the two integrals.

If you're paying for the force changes, then you're also paying for any work they perform, and what you have is just a conventional motor.

But if the force is changing passively, at no cost to your system, then you have what is traditionally, if oxymoronically, referred to as a "perpetual motion" machine when the asymmetry is applied in one direction, and a "non-dissipative loss" when run in the reverse direction.

This is a disunity / non-unity; overunity, or under.

Conservation of energy does not apply to time-varying systems: such an interaction may be symmetrical, or it may not; losing or gaining energy as a function of the passive force changes.

So no, it's not "impossible" - the conditions for both observance and avoidance of CoE are written into the terms of the contract.

A simple gravitational asymmetry is impossible, barring some biblical cataclysm mid-interaction. Gravity is a static field, so all closed-loop trajectories through it have zero energy.

But if there is some loophole there i've not considered, its terms are still implicit and consistent with the points made above.

The message to take home in all this however is simply that, far from being impossible, the conditions for symmetry and asymmetry are two sides of the same coin - classical physics is telling us as much what to do, as what not to.

This is why i'm currently so enthused by the prospects of N3 symmetry not being the fundamental impenetrable barricade it first seems to be. It's a constant parameter that is itself subject to further variables... controllable ones.

Anyhoos, Merry Xmas to all, and remember that an asymmetric interaction, gaining or losing energy, is a direct manifestation of the laws of conservation in action; asymmetries depend on CoE applying, instantaneously, at each step in the summation of an interaction's F*d integrals...

The writing's on the wall. We're going to turn the rules to our advantage.

[pequaide]

At 36 rpm the rocket would have to have a diameter of .53 meters to have a arch velocity of 1 m/sec. This is not an outside diameter this is the average distribution of mass at different radii away from the point of rotation. This might be small but the point being made here would be the same if the diameter were 1.06 meters and the arch velocity 2 m/sec.

Using 1200 kilograms moving 1 m/sec the initial kinetic energy would be 600 joules.

If the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then the final energy would have to be 600 joules.

So ½ * 3kg * X m/sec * X m/sec = 600 joules; which is the square root of 600 * 2 /3 = 20 m/sec.

If the Law of Conservation of Energy were true; the final (or maximum velocity) velocity of the 3 kg would be 20 m/sec.

If momentum is conserved the final velocity is 400 m/sec. 3 kg * 400 m/sec = 1 m/sec * 1200 kg

The 20 m/sec required for Law of Conservation of Energy is a 95% lose of momentum. You have only 5% remaining. You have lost 1140 (3 kg * 380 m/sec) units of momentum. And you have only 60 (3 kg * 20 m/sec) units of momentum remaining.

Per a massive quantity of experiments we know that momentum is the only motion transferred when a small object collides with a larger object. So if the 3 kilograms moving 20 m/sec begins to give its motion back to the rocket body then it can only restore 5% of the original motion. And this full 5% restoration can only be after the 3 kilograms has had its own velocity depleted to the same velocity of the rocket.

There is a point in the Dawn Mission motion transfer when three rpm has been restored to the rocket's rotation and the 3 kilograms is still out on the end of the tether with nearly maximum velocity.

Three rpm is 8.33% of 36 rpm; 3/36 = .0833 or 8.33 %

It is a physical impossibility for 5% of the motion to restore 8.33% of the motion. And this 8.33% restoration occurs when very little of the motion of the 3 kilograms has been removed.

What realty happens is that the rocket is stopped at the point where the 3 kilograms has 400 m/sec velocity. This stop is a little early of 90° to tangent and the 3 kilograms will pull the rocket back into motion before the tether comes to 90°. This will take 8.33% of the total motion; or 99.99 (3 kg * 33.33) units of momentum. The 3 kilogram mass was moving about 367 m/sec at release.

[eccentrically1]

The default state of a body is dependent on the frame of reference chosen.

Any interaction creates thermal energy. You can't build an ideal machine, 100% efficient, much less a machine that is more than 100% efficient, powering other machines.

Any interaction is asymmetrical in the "loss" column. So no, it's not possible.


Merry Christmas to everyone!

[perpetualman]

If and when someone finally has a successful wheel, how should he or she, go about getting the word out? Should a patent be an option or, broadcast it world wide. I was told that a patent would be a waist of time because, you would become so famous that wealth would just naturally follow. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Perpetualman.

[MrVibrating]

The default state of a body is dependent on the frame of reference chosen.

Yes, and perpetual until acted upon by an applied force.

Unless the measurement frame is itself accelerating - which usually implies energy is being expended.

Perpetual motion is, in its literal sense, the most trivial phenomenon.

"Perpetual motion" as it's normally meant is just a turn of phrase, a common expression but as such, a misnomer, since we mean it to refer to an energy-creating process - in other words an asymmetric interaction.

Once we disambiguate the expression from its literal meaning, we see that the real issue simply revolves around the fact that interactions with static fields can only be symmetrical... while those with dynamic fields can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, depending on the balance of variables.

So the proposition is entirely conditional - trying to get an input / output asymmetry from a closed loop through a static field is clearly a fool's errand.

But if the field is varying over time, it could require more effort to obtain a unity result than a disunity, depending on the displacement speeds relative to the field variation rates. If we're paying for the field variation then we're also likely paying for any work it performs, but if it's varying automatically anyway, regardless of what we do, then we have a free energy gradient.

Any interaction creates thermal energy. You can't build an ideal machine, 100% efficient, much less a machine that is more than 100% efficient, powering other machines.

Any interaction is asymmetrical in the "loss" column. So no, it's not possible.

You're conflating two incompatible measures of efficiency - our principle concern is input vs output efficiency, not the coefficient of performance of either stroke - confuse 'em and we may lose the baby with the bathwater.

The I/O efficiency of any mechanical interaction is only concerned with the balance of respective force * displacement integrals. Entropic losses are almost entirely incidental, only determining how the gradient might be applied (ie. if I < O and I is 100% mechanical work while O is only 1%, then we still have free excess heat from our input energy).

For this reason, interaction symmetry should normally be considered only in terms of ideal, perfectly lossless, PE/KE conversions; ie. KE=PE, irrespective of the inevitability of actual losses; if we do have an I/O asymmetry and net input is unequal to net output then whether the output energy is in the form of macroscopic displacements, microscopic ones or a mix of both, the distinction's academic: we still have an excess of output work, even if much of it's in small change.

Which brings us to the next point, of dissipative losses vs non-dissipative systems...

"Dissipative" loss mechanisms are typically those that convert PE to heat - like electrical resistance, friction, nuclear decay etc. Yet a perfectly insulated kettle is a 100% efficient heater - no energy is being wasted.

So more fundamentally, the "efficiency" of dissipative mechanisms is also conditional on the balance of I/O efficiency - driving a car with its doors open reduces MPG efficiency, wasting energy directly to low grade heat, but the same amount of fuel PE has converted to the same amount of ambient heat regardless of aerodynamics - a zero-drag car with 100% efficient regenerative braking would only need an energy storage medium, and never need topping up with further PE. So ultimately a car's conversion of fuel PE to heat is always 100%, whatever the balance of aerodynamic to exhaust losses. It's what happens in the interim that matters - the amount of useful work performed.

So dissipative and entropic processes aren't exclusively "loss" mechanisms. And they're only incidentally relevant to the balance of I/O efficiency / classical energy symmetry.

And all of this is still trivial. What is far more interesting, is the phenomenon of non-dissipative non-conservative systems. This subject is right up our street...

In a non-dissipative non-conservative loss mechanism, the energy in question has not been dissipated as low-grade heat.

Rather, it's just disappeared. Calorimetry would show a deficit. This class of systems "destroy" classical energy, and in form and function they are the corollary to a thermodynamic gain - it is the same type of I/O asymmetry, only in reverse.

So for instance if we had one of Bessler's one-directional wheels, and we turned it in the opposite direction, the input work required would be equal to the output work when it was running in the preferential direction. But calorimetry would not show this input work as raising the temperature of a perfectly-insulated container - any more than it would show a drop in temperature when we let the wheel run.

So a non-dissipative non-conservative interaction is exactly the same phenomenon as a gain - it's the same kind of asymmetry, but simply ran backwards; the inverse of a gainful interaction.

These systems are thermodynamically open - they cannot be perfectly insulated against loss or gain, their net energy is not constant, so they cannot be thermodynamically closed.

Yet all of this is more information than we need; everything we need to know here can be distilled into a concise catch-all requirement:

- we're looking for a system in which net input (whatever its forms or terms) is unequal to net output (whatever its forms or terms); this is a classical asymmetry.

So juggling balls isn't even in the right ballpark; we need to involve additional, dynamic forces, and displacements against them, gravity can play only an incidental role, and we need to consider all potential design concepts in terms of discrete input and output energies; as individual products of their respective forces and displacements.

Again. the feasability of OU is implicit within the terms and conditions of unity.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

...and a very merry Christmas to you too! We all say it every year, but with Steorn and Rossi going public in 2016, and JC in high confidence, this could be one for the history books.. and serious internal investigations for the Possible Police..

[eccentrically1]

Any interaction creates thermal energy. You can't build an ideal machine, 100% efficient, much less a machine that is more than 100% efficient, powering other machines.

Any interaction is asymmetrical in the "loss" column. So no, it's not possible.

You're conflating two incompatible measures of efficiency - our principle concern is input vs output efficiency, not the coefficient of performance of either stroke - confuse 'em and we may lose the baby with the bathwater.

Input vs . Output is what efficiency refers to and that is what I meant. I don't think what I said referred to the coefficient of performance of either stroke.
I'm not confused.

Yet all of this is more information than we need; everything we need to know here can be distilled into a concise catch-all requirement:

- we're looking for a system in which net input (whatever its forms or terms) is unequal to net output (whatever its forms or terms); this is a classical asymmetry.

And that is impossible. Bessler was subject to the same laws as we are. His wheels were not outputting more than they were inputting.

[jim_mich]

His wheels were not outputting more than they were inputting.

How do you know this? According to the eyewitness accounts, his wheels were started with a very small start-up push. Then they accelerated and put out significant usable torque for many days.

So you can believe your own warped concept of the details of Bessler's wheels.
You can twist the info into your own twisted concept of what happened.

The bottom line is Bessler's wheels very definitely put out more energy than was put into them.

[justsomeone]

Unless gravity was the input energy source Jim. ;)

[eccentrically1]

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.

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.

If the mass then stays constant, the velocity (net) of the weights would have to increase, and the momentum law would be violated in that way. Where would the extra velocity originate?

[eccentrically1]

..

[jim_mich]

eccentrically1, you are posting garbage. You are failing to READ what I write.

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.

The mass stays constant. No magical transformation of mass. The momentum of one weights moves into the other weight. A very simple situation. There is no extra velocity. There is instead extra kinetic energy available. Use the increased KE to rotate the wheel. The wheel and its two weights ends up rotating faster. Then the cycle repeats. More KE is gained from movement of momentum from one weight to another. Again the KE is increased while momentum i conserved.

It really is not that difficult of a concept, except it takes knowledge of HOW to PROPERLY move momentum.

Here, let me help you out with your image posting problem... remove the "white space" around the link to your image...

Code: Select all

[img]http://nerdcityonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2299811-583875-fiery-number-6-one-of-the-collection.jpg[/img]