Perpetual Motion is Impossible

[thx4]

TXH. I think there might be some specifics lost in translation.

Are you trying to build a perpetual motion machine? or are you trying to replicate a 90 day run test by dropping a weight using an escapement? To me it sounds like #2, but hoping to achieve #1.

Thanks for the feedback, it's definitely version #2 with a big in....certitude for #1 😊
I'll continue editing but I'm not sure if it will be enough to make it look good.

A++

[agor95]

Earth’s motion is part of a wheel’s environment, or is it?
It’s my understanding that motion is relative to two objects if you are considering them interacting. iow, two objects can exchange motions as separate object with two speeds (the slingshot). So relative to the wheel, the earth doesn’t have any motion to interact with. Relative to the earth the wheel doesn’t have any motion. Imo.

The slingshot appears to be the most promising. Then finding how to implement such a path in a rotating wheel is the challenge.

The actual rotation of the Earth is a weak affect compared to a fully rotating wheel.

With the wheel accelerating to full speed in three rotations; well the Earth's rotation has hardly moved.

All the Best

[eccentrically1]

Earth’s motion is part of a wheel’s environment, or is it?
It’s my understanding that motion is relative to two objects if you are considering them interacting. iow, two objects can exchange motions as separate object with two speeds (the slingshot). So relative to the wheel, the earth doesn’t have any motion to interact with. Relative to the earth the wheel doesn’t have any motion. Imo.

The slingshot appears to be the most promising. Then finding how to implement such a path in a rotating wheel is the challenge.

The actual rotation of the Earth is a weak affect compared to a fully rotating wheel.

With the wheel accelerating to full speed in three rotations; well the Earth's rotation has hardly moved.


All the Best

Do you feel rotational acceleration sitting in a chair? No, just your weight, towards earth center.
Relative to the earth, you’re not moving, and the earth doesn’t move under you.
There’s no effect; the slingshot is a different situation. A satellite isn’t anchored to earth, it’s orbiting.
We can’t implement such a path.

[agor95]

Do you feel rotational acceleration sitting in a chair? No, just your weight, towards earth center.
Relative to the earth, you’re not moving, and the earth doesn’t move under you.
There’s no effect; the slingshot is a different situation. A satellite isn’t anchored to earth, it’s orbiting.
We can’t implement such a path.

I agree with your logic. All though my head is spinning in my chair doing all the coding and testing.
My path is fixed relative to the Earth and my circular path around earth is so large it appears to be
flat.

Creating a slingshot in a wheel appears to be impossible. It's not easy to visualise.

For a start you need three objects each moving in relation to each other and to be connected
to each other.

All the Best

[Fletcher]

My template ..

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

"When you hear hooves think horses, not zebras."

"Follow the energy/fuel"

The basic premise is that to output work a runner needs a fuel/energy input. Gravity is a force and not an energy. Therefore to have an 'impossible' runner (based on OOB principles) then it must have an 'improbable' fuel/energy source. We know that environmental forces are far too weak to replicate B's. work tests at his scale. And we can only use technology of his time. Our sources and choices of fuel/energy are ridiculously limited.

** In my case I eventually worked up a simple Prime Mover mech design from an amalgam of the Toy's Page figures, with respect to certain well known MT's. And also keeping cognizant of the constraints of fundamental Physics and Mechanics Conservation Laws and Symmetries. Since traditional OOB wheels are 'torque conservative' then the Prime Mover needed to induce some superior directional force internally within the wheel to create a Net Positive Torque condition, and at the same time not violate Newton's Laws etc. Once I had a bead on what those fundamental mechanics could be, while still being ostensibly an OOB wheel format, then I could begin to deduce and look for a real source of energy that hypothetically caused it to be a self-moving runner. Momentum/RKE appropriation seemed a likely candidate regardless of there being no recognised examples existing in nature at the earths surface (altho known in satellite sling-shot maneuvers to gain KE and speed).

^^ Yes I know - mech before fuel is an arse about face approach - So far I am quite happy with the potential Prime Movers' progress and resilience (as determined by me). No show stopper has been found as yet. It will need a real-world build to fully test its functionality and whether it is fit for purpose as imagined. Imagination is notoriously unreliable and a poor substitute for empirical evidence as we all know only too well in this quest to solve the mechanical conundrum of B's. PM Principle of "excess weight".

ECC1 wrote .. Our choices are limited to an energy form that can be taken from a wheel environment since we can’t consider a stand alone onboard energy ‘tank’ (that would need at least 54 days or more of stored energy — which would disqualify it [Karl]).

Unless it could somehow refill its own tank through some natural process we can’t fathom yet.

If we saw it as Karl might have would we understand it? If we could fathom it, it’s back on the table, yes?

In a sense it is figuratively refilling its onboard usable 'energy' tank .. what it is not is a traditional or classical source of energy that is stored as Potential Energy to be turned into mechanical energy. It was not a carbon based fuel, it wasn't any chemical energy, or fermentation energy, heat engine, etc etc. - Horses not Zebras ! -

And Karl did understand it very clearly .. he says so many times either directly or in reported conversations with credible people who wrote about what Karl had said to them.

In JC's DT .. Karl says in his written testimonial 27 May 1718 ..

"so-called Perpetual Motion is a revolving wheel, which is able to run, by means of its own innate momentum."

"His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine...' - letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721"

... "which His Serene Highness assured me to the contrary, and that the machine was very simple ...' - letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721"

From : JC’s PMAAMS? (pg 143) .. Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748) responded to 'sGravesande's publication. He was a member of a famous family of Swiss mathematicians and was, himself, a major contributor to mathematics. He was a firm supporter of Leibniz in the controversy with Newton over who first discovered the calculus. During his final years he worked mainly in the field of mechanics. In a letter to 'sGravesande he wrote, 'I move on now to your comments on the possibility of perpetual motion, which were written on the occasion of your examination of the effects of the machine at Kassel. Several years ago, marvelous things were written to me from Germany about this machine, and even a view of the exterior was sent to me. Now, I have been assured that the secret was communicated to His Serene Highness, the Landgrave of Hesse, under an oath of silence, and he was allowed to examine the internal structure of the wheel. Afterwards, his Serene Highness was quoted as saying to his ministers, that he believed the machine to be a true perpetual motion machine, and in addition, it was so simple and easy to construct that he was amazed that no one had managed to invent a similar machine before Herr Orffyreus.

Earth’s motion is part of a wheel’s environment, or is it?

It’s my understanding that motion is relative to two objects if you are considering them interacting. iow, two objects can exchange motions as separate object with two speeds (the slingshot). So relative to the wheel, the earth doesn’t have any motion to interact with. Relative to the earth the wheel doesn’t have any motion. Imo.

The wheel has a rotational when operational - the internal parts are revolving around an axle position (center of rotation) and relative to the center of the earth beneath the wheel stand. All physical objects have a mass and inertia. And this is the commonality with the sling-shot analogy and not mutual gravitational attraction per se.

Good luck, though. I agree temperature swings are weak. But they’re all that’s left for a wheel environment imo. What else from there is a candidate? I can’t think of anything else.

Thanks .. it was not harnessing a temperature or pressure gradient for a couple of reasons .. B. in AP and DT calls it "True Perpetual Motion". In DT he again calls it "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion".

Drebbel is written about in B's. DT, who lived 100 years before B. Clearly Drebbel's P.M. device using pressure and temperature differential was well know in scientific circles discussing the possibility of P.M. and would have been compared to B. and his claims. That's why imo he added the "true" disclaimer amongst other reasons.

..............

FWIW .. next week I will probably start a new topic and rehash some old threads contents and posts that I have on file about B's. "excess weight" principle, and the various translation sources that are often quoted but sometimes give different impressions of meaning.

[eccentrically1]

The wheel has a rotational when operational - the internal parts are revolving around an axle position (center of rotation) and relative to the center of the earth beneath the wheel stand. All physical objects have a mass and inertia. And this is the commonality with the sling-shot analogy and not mutual gravitational attraction per se.

What is the commonality?

[Fletcher]

My theory is they both, being distant cousins of sorts, are representative of the physics of mass and inertia between bodies interacting in a gravity field leading to a gain in momentum/KE for the smaller parasitic satellite/wheel (as I've said before) .. that is the common element as I see it.

The probable new topic next week will be about B's. "true mechanical Perpetual Motion" and his principle of "excess weight" (preponderance/impetus/superior force), and the likelihood that Karl's "innate momentum" is one and the same thing, imo. You'll be able to draw your own conclusions along with everyone else.

[agor95]

My theory is they both, being distant cousins of sorts, are representative of the physics of mass and inertia between bodies interacting in a gravity field leading to a gain in momentum/KE for the smaller parasitic satellite/wheel (as I've said before) .. that is the common element as I see it.

The probable new topic next week will be about B's. "true mechanical Perpetual Motion" and his principle of "excess weight" (preponderance/impetus/superior force), and the likelihood that Karl's "innate momentum" is one and the same thing, imo. You'll be able to draw your own conclusions along with everyone else.

That is the direction I am on for some time. No ownership issues here.

I am into maths at this time to prove the dynamics. Your Scott Hall presentation showed a pertinent point.
The mass should not be moved forwards to were you want them to be, but the frame needs to be move back!

All the Best

[eccentrically1]

My theory is they both, being distant cousins of sorts, are representative of the physics of mass and inertia between bodies interacting in a gravity field leading to a gain in momentum/KE for the smaller parasitic satellite/wheel (as I've said before) .. that is the common element as I see it.

The probable new topic next week will be about B's. "true mechanical Perpetual Motion" and his principle of "excess weight" (preponderance/impetus/superior force), and the likelihood that Karl's "innate momentum" is one and the same thing, imo. You'll be able to draw your own conclusions along with everyone else.

I don't agree that they are distant cousins. It's not a good example. A satellite gains ke from earth's orbital motion, not from interacting within a gravity field. A wheel and axle can't gain ke from orbital motion that way (as I've said before).

The thing we need to conclude about those terms they used to describe his wheels has always been the same thing.
What's the source?

[Fletcher]

My theory is they both, being distant cousins of sorts, are representative of the physics of mass and inertia between bodies interacting in a gravity field leading to a gain in momentum/KE for the smaller parasitic satellite/wheel (as I've said before) .. that is the common element as I see it.

The probable new topic next week will be about B's. "true mechanical Perpetual Motion" and his principle of "excess weight" (preponderance/impetus/superior force), and the likelihood that Karl's "innate momentum" is one and the same thing, imo. You'll be able to draw your own conclusions along with everyone else.

I don't agree that they are distant cousins. It's not a good example. A satellite gains ke from earth's orbital motion, not from interacting within a gravity field. A wheel and axle can't gain ke from orbital motion that way (as I've said before).

The thing we need to conclude about those terms they used to describe his wheels has always been the same thing.
What's the source?

I have previously said that the Slingshot Maneuver (also known as "Gravity Assist") is not a good or accurate example of momentum transfer in relation to what may happen in my theory of B's. runners gaining in momentum and sustaining themselves and doing external Work. As the advancing tidal bulge as the moon rotates around the earth is also not a very good or accurate, or even relevant example. They are both just examples however of momentum gains to a satellite at the expense of the other, using celestial mechanics. Another example is the well known Double Ball Drop experiment. IMO there is an extreme dearth of any completely relevant examples to compare to B's runners to be found in nature. So few in fact that there may be none that we know of, as yet.

You have said that "A satellite gains ke from earth's orbital motion, not from interacting within a gravity field". I'll let others decide whether that is a correct statement. See the HyperPhysics pages below to read about them. The gravity assist is, well, a gravity assist, and the double ball drop happens in a gravity field. As does the advancing tidal bulge in earth moon mechanics.

Momentum and KE are related in that both are factors of mass and velocity.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/doubal.html

N.B. the usual way to explain the gravity assist and double ball drop experiment is to use the analogy of a perfectly elastic collision. A perfectly elastic collision in and of itself does not lead to a satellite / weight gaining in "excess momentum".

[agor95]

Hi All

As we work at communicating with others a use of analogies will arise.
They are used to try and explain the behaviour. But like most fall short of a full picture.

That is the case here for the slingshot to be gravity induced the momentum
gained by a satellite. The slingshot around the Earth by crossing it's orbital path on the trailing side.
Thus taking a minute amount of orbital speed from the Earth causing the orbit to reduce.

So it is fair to say the above Gravity Slingshot is impossible within a wheel!

However we are talking about a Momentum Slingshot were acceleration presented by gravity
is replaced by acceleration presented by a curved path of a mass.

There is no analogy for this Momentum Slingshot process.

All the Best

[Robinhood46]

I think gravity is the source of the energy. The unidirectional force of gravity is transformed into rotational force by the paths taken by the weights (we can word it differently if we wish, because gravity isn't a force).
Perpetual motion being impossible because gravity is a conservative force is an assumption. Because we have been too stupid to find the answer, we needed a reason to explain our failure. Some bright spark thought that gravity being a conservative force sounds like a bloody good excuse for our failure, the rest of us went along with it, and we still do.
The conservative aspect of gravity's force, on a weight, only makes PM impossible if everything is rotating (rising and falling) at the same rate.
In other words PM is impossible if the weights are fixed to a specific section of the wheel and therefore rotate at the same speed, because gravity is a conservative force.
On the other hand, if masses are rotating around a common axis at different speeds PM is not impossible, because the conservative aspect of gravity is no longer applicable.
Or another way of putting it, Robinhood's Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference, is simply wheels which do not care that gravity is conservative, because they are not destined to fail because of it. They will fail for many other reasons but not because of gravity being conservative.

[eccentrically1]

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

The "assist" is provided by the motion of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft. Any gain or loss of kinetic energy and linear momentum by a passing spacecraft is correspondingly lost or gained by the gravitational body, in accordance with Newton's Third Law.

Note assist is in quotes; indicating it's a misnomer.

[johannesbender]

Conservative gravity is a double edged sword , while it means that you should get out the same as you put in as a guaranteed budget , it also means you should get no more out than you put in as a guaranteed no gain transaction , the tax man however colects his cut , and the budget loses a percent of output .

A ball falls 1 meter hits the floor and bounces back up lower than its 1 meter starting height , losses are real , the tax man takes and does not miss , how and where does the ball make up for the losses ?

I have my theory , but i also have a big fat hole in the theory i cant figure out , well according to common sense and accepted fact i should have a big fat hole in the theory so i dont mind too much :)

[Robinhood46]

how and where does the ball make up for the losses ?

Gravity causes the weight to accelerate toward the earth on the way down, because the combined COG of the weight and the wheel is OOB, but on the way up, gravity only has an effect on the weight, if the weight is detached from the wheel. The wheel, being balanced isn't affected by gravity because it's COG cannot go anywhere, because it is fixed, rotating on the spot. The weight is affected positively and negatively by gravity as it rotates the axis, everything balances out because gravity is conservative. The weight started at height X and ended at height X, no gain.
The wheel is only being affected by gravity while the weights are descending, which has the effect of transferring energy to the wheel.
The excess energy is found in the difference in time, between the weights descending and ascending, because the acceleration of the wheel extends the time gravity applies its force to the weight.
Gravity accelerates mass + wheel when the weight goes down, but only decelerates the mass when the weight goes up.