John doe wrote:Wrong!
As my dear mother used to say
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck it is a duck!
It exhibits all of the traits of an open system and none of the traits of a closed system! Thus it is an open system!
Do you understand the difference between an open system and a closed system?
John, you are the one saying that I'm wrong. So you need to explain WHY you think I'm wrong.
In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system. A closed system in classical mechanics would be considered an isolated system in thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics
The definition of an open system assumes that there are supplies of energy that cannot be depleted; in practice, this energy is supplied from some source in the surrounding environment, which can be treated as infinite for the purposes of study. One type of open system is the so-called radiant energy system, which receives its energy from solar radiation – an energy source that can be regarded as inexhaustible for all practical purposes.
I'm not saying you are wrong the definition is saying it for me....
But I really do enjoy our discussions!
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
So, John, what "energy is supplied from some source in the surrounding environment" so as to rotate Bessler's wheel, and thus make his wheel an open system?
Think of besslers original wheels. They were self starting and self motivating .The Only explanation for this is that I can think of is that it was an open system that even accelerated to predetermined speed from a dead stop at any position.
I'm sorry that you do not want to hear this as it goes against your current theories but it's the only thing that makes sense.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system.
and
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.
John wrote:I'm sorry that you do not want to hear this as it goes against your current theories but it's the only thing that makes sense.
That's low!!
Jim_mich wrote:John, you are the one saying that I'm wrong. So you need to explain WHY you think I'm wrong.
I still don't know John's theory explaining Einsteins's formula's would be more applicable than Newton's.
Basically the test should be "easy":
Create a wheel, isolate that wheel by insulation from its surroundings.
When it cools down, it takes energy and it's an open system.
When it heats up, it generates energy (like sound perhaps), and it can be considered a closed system.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system.
and
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.
Isn't "work" a "force"?
Gravity is also a force.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John wrote:I'm sorry that you do not want to hear this as it goes against your current theories but it's the only thing that makes sense.
That's low!!
I apologize to Jim if it came out as insulting I really did not mean it that way, but I was acknowledging that the facts as I understand them especially concerning besslers first wheel do not seem to support jim's theory of a motion wheel. However I do not know the specifics of his build and just because it does not fit with my interpretation of the facts concerning besslers unidirectional wheels specifically does not preclude that his wheel once accomplished will not be a successful pmm wheel. I have already stated that I believe there will be my multiple ways to achieving the same or similar results.
It also does not preclude the possibility of some combination of an OB wheel and a motion wheel or some other completely different combination of mechanics
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John Collins wrote:I agree with your first statement although I take issue with the term PMM, as it has negative connotations as well as being inaccurate. Bessler's wheel was what was believed to be a perpetual motion machine, but it wasn't really perpetual. Besides having the obvious deficiency of being liable to breaki down at some point due to wear and tear, it was no more perpetual than an automobile is, providing it has its perpetual supply of gas. Some might say I'm being picky, but I do think that the term PM is doing us no favours.
Ditto.
if anything is truly and successfully using gravity
in such a way that it utilizes its aspect of perpetually pulling in one direction
it doesn't fit the technical definition of a PMM
because it runs on an outside source of energy
just as a water mill could run perpetually as long as the water doesn't run out
if it does stop
then the mill stops
so it depends on an outside source
if you get one to work name it the perpetual mindf*** machine
