Was Bessler's wheel a closed/islolated systems???

[Furcurequs]

After doing a bit of review, it seems to me that in thermodynamics there is a difference between a "closed system" and an "isolated system."

From what I've read, it appears that a "closed system" actually allows for an exchange of heat and energy with its surroundings but not any exchange of mass.

...and that an "isolated system" does not allow for the exchange of either mass or energy.

Of course, when thinking in terms of "mass/energy equivalence," as some express it, I guess the reality might get a little hairy.

We, of course, would want energy out of a Bessler wheel, so we couldn't really consider it an "isolated system" if we could actually have one to use as an energy source.

...but in keeping with the old thermodynamic definition, as long as we didn't have to shovel in coal or feed it some other sort of "material" fuel, it might still be considered a "closed system" - even if the ultimate source of the energy was external and non-material.

I guess the really important questions, then, are whether it would require a material fuel source or whether it would somehow extract energy from the environment.

...or, of course, magically or miraculously create energy from nothing, which I believe is (or are?) the least likely of all possible scenarios.

No matter what words we might use to describe the system, then, my thinking is along the lines of John Collins', and that if a working device is actually possible it would likely get the energy from the gravitational field of the earth. (I, also, think though that a change in the motion of the earth, even if extraordinarily small, might be a result.)

I would expect it, then, to do with gravity essentially what a Crookes radiometer (light mill), a crystal radio or a solar cell does with electromagnetic radiation. Energy goes in one way and energy comes out another.

[John doe]

You are probably right Furcurequs

[ME]

A perpetual motion device should be able to perform work.
This "work" could also mean that it drives itself up a rope for instance (no matter how fast).
So that could be something similar to a yo-yo-despin for the earth - even though initially not driven by some centrifugal effect - but just a weight going to a larger radius.

If such is the case, would the earth speed up when this machine does not climb a rope and just stays on the ground - or is this combination balanced?

[John doe]

Thanks, John Collins, for your explanation of your opinion of a closed sysetem. I have two main systems that feed each other, but without gravity it would indeed be a closed system. Gravity is the fuel source.

While I understand your regard for john Collins probably more than most as a fellow john and almost a fellow Collins through marriage, I hope you realize he puts his pants on tne same way as the rest of us do, one leg at a time.

[John doe]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4yljMBY40I4

[ME]

:-)
The problem with large and small numbers....

One jump takes a second, perhaps it shifts a fraction of an Angstrom (1E-10 m) about the size of an atom.
The sun goes into a red giant in about 4.5E9 years, or 1E17 seconds.
That shift-fraction could be one tenth of a millionth (1E-7) of the size of an atom to cause a deviation of one meter when that happens when only considering this...
Which is again nothing compared to the size of the earth... :=)
Perhaps a jump seems nothing and easily overwhelmed by other events, but it is still something...

[John doe]

Butterfly effect?

[ME]

That, or a peacocks tail.

[Furcurequs]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4yljMBY40I4

I was a bit reluctant to click on that. I was afraid it might be of men putting on their pants.

...lol

[John doe]

Lol

[Furcurequs]

You are probably right Furcurequs

I don't know. Maybe.

The first part of my earlier argument was from the old thermodynamic point of view.

Apparently, in the classical mechanics point of view a "closed system" can neither exchange matter with its environment or be "subject to any force whose source is external to the system" (if we trust wikipedia).

So, with that definition, if we had a working Bessler-like wheel that derived energy from the force of gravity, quite likely we wouldn't then consider it a closed system, as of course John Collins has argued.

In classical mechanics

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.[1][2] A closed system in classical mechanics would be considered an isolated system in thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

I do stand by the latter part of my argument, though, for I think that for most of us who are considering the possibility of some sort of gravity powered device, we can likely see that when considering the various definitions of "closed system," it's just a matter of semantics.

The important question is "Where do we get the energy?"

[raj]

I am pleased to have started this thread.
And more so, with all enlightening replies.

Raj

[John doe]

Perhaps Bessler was aware by experience, but that specific law was about to be invented.
I personally think that a larger wheel is just more practical to build and less subjected to wear and tear. The win-win: As wheels get smaller, they tend to have a higher velocity while needing more accuracy to build, requiring a reduction of the heaviness of the weights, and thus producing less power.

As I understand it Whatever laws were on the books they stated that PMM was impossible. I always thought newtons laws of motion precluded PMM but I'm not sure. Regardless it seems a pretty well established fact that PMM was thought to be impossible in besslers time.

[ME]

I'm no authority on this, but this is what I think:

Most principles where known one way or the other since man could build stuff - Maybe as far back as prehistoric times with the invention of stick-throwing and bow & arrow.
As manufacturing and creating structures and buildings is never easy and requires a lot of potential (both kinds), man thought of ways to make it go easier and faster. As easy-labor was always on top of the list, man thought of nifty tricks to make things happen: mechanical slavery was always out of reach - leverage (both kinds) was a good second.

Newton just wrote it down, added the behavior of gravity and conservation of momentum. Leibniz thought of conservation of energy (or that was Galileo?) but both conservations seemed incompatible. Perpetual Motion "became almost impossible" once Joules introduced "Work" and "Heat" from mechanical arrangements (which was in practical sense also known since we could make fire ourselves)
But until the first law of Thermodynamics was invented around 1850 (which outlawed Perpetual Motion completely), perpetual motion was just hard to do..

[Paul T]

Hi all, I think based on my own experiments that Bessler had 8 equal pendulums which he had manufactured eight one way ratchets.

Gravity was the environmental input, leverage and centrifugal force assisted in the fluid asymmetrical movement. It was a drain hole for gravity to flow into.

It was stopped from going too fast by the load and timing mechanism.

I believe I have cracked Bessler and encorporated magnets.

A wheel that uses magnetic repulsion and gravity as the environmental input.

Best regards,

Paul