Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[daxwc]

Yet RH46 this unbalance exists without heat loss; as in the roller racers and inertia. In the impact energy difference at the bottom flags.

[eccentrically1]

Yet RH46 this unbalance exists without heat loss; as in the roller racers and inertia. In the impact energy difference at the bottom flags.

the car is an apple; the discs and hoops are oranges.

[daxwc]

the car is an apple; the discs and hoops are oranges.

Energy is energy. Both involve inertia.

[Fletcher]

The difference in energy input to you pushing your car across a flat surface by a continual stopping and starting exercise verses one continuous push exercise dax is down to a few main things .. which are accumulating dissipative energy losses adding up over the distance covered .. not inertia ..

1. wind frictions (air drag energy losses) - drag losses are a factor of v^2 - the quicker you push it the more air drag losses .. my wife says I drive like an old man - I dispute that, I drive carefully and steadily to reduce energy costs, not because I'm an old man ;7)

2. Static friction losses - these are greatest when the wheels and bearings etc are stationary, and reduce to zero as the wheels rotate faster and faster .. each time you stop and start these have to be re-overcome ..

3. Rolling friction losses - these occur from frictional contact of the wheels with the surface and from bearings turning in their cages etc ..

** the inertia remains the same for each instance - and when you push and let it coast to a stop, then catch up with it again and give it another push etc - you are theoretically not expending muscle energy when it is coasting ..

[Fletcher]

Well said Graham - even if I don't agree with all you conclusions - it was still worth saying it .. I bump it in case it gets swallowed up and passed by - cheers ..

... With that being said I will get on my soap box for a couple of minutes. Please do - standing on a soap box is like standing on the shoulders of giants - it's a cathartic process and we can sometimes see further ..

I know that it's possible to get tired of going over the same things that have been said many times but in this case it's unavoidable so here goes.

First of all I have to say that I am taking the view that Bessler never lied at any point. If it turns out that I am wrong in the things that I say and someone comes up with a working wheel that is at odds with what I am saying I won't care. I will just simply be pleased that the answer is found.

We can't go back in time and uncover Besslers wheel to see what is inside it but we can reverse engineer it knowing how it behaved as long as we stick to the known facts.

Firstly the wheel didn't get it's energy from the weights whizzing around the wheel picking up some form of mysterious energy. The energy came from gravity. This is based on the reasonable assumption that Besslers first wheels operated from the same principle that his later ones did albeit with some modifications.

His first wheels turned as soon as they were released meaning that the internal structure took up an overbalanced shape at all times. I don't know about you but it's difficult for me to think about whizzing weights in play. The weights were already in the place they needed to be in. This by the way is the kind of thing that I am proposing with my wheel since it is self starting and would work like a water wheel for gravity.

So part of the solution to this problem is actually quite simple. Gravity is not a conservative force.

This reminds me of something that happened to me when I was once employed to work on welding equipment. I visited a factory to find out what the problem was with a MIG welder. The resident electrician there told me that there was a problem with the welding set that was difficult to find and that another engineer had failed to find it. I looked up at the circuit breaker on the wall and asked if that had been looked at. The electrician told me that it had been changed and that it was a new one so the problem wasn’t that. I proceeded to check every damn thing on that welding set and I practically took it apart but I couldn’t find the fault. The next day my boss came up to me and said that he had looked at the same welding set and that he had found the fault. I said blimey what was it? He said the circuit breaker. We need to find within Classical Mechanics the physical circuit breaker for why B's. one-way wheels were always able to self-start from ANY position stopped at - it's there, as he said - it was found in NATURE and children played with in the lane (paraphrased) ..

I learned a very important lesson that day and its one that every scientist knows as well. Don’t assume anything absolutely. Always bear in mind that assumptions may be useful at times but you can’t take them as fact. There is no real proof that gravity is a conservative force.

Some people on the forum have already speculated that gravity is not a conservative force and some have suggested that using gravity as a power source will possibly have very negative effects. I agree with the first one but I would be surprised if the second one was really the case. Show me some force that man uses that nature hasn’t been using since time began. There is no reason that I can see why using gravity in this way has to be bad. It may even be linked to anti gravity and we may find that gravity is not as strong over a working gravity wheel. We do of course get energy indirectly from gravity. Geothermal energy is one of the best of these and is a constant source of reliable energy.

The prime mover is a weight shifting mechanism that enables a larger weight to be lifted by a smaller weight. For anyone who's groaning right now saying blimey he's off again with his weight shifting malarkey I'm sorry but I can't change that unless something more logical comes along. The weight shifting mechanism I am thinking of at the moment works in theory but I need to do more simulations and then find out what happens when it is on a wheel. All the best.
Graham

As time passes, and we gain in experience, our thoughts and insights should evolve and mature - as they did for Bessler - nothing is outside of NATURE and the natural forces ..

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher,
Are you sure that inertia isn't reducing the energy needed to get the car from a to b, if it doesn't stop and start?
I would have thought that keeping the car at a constant velocity, simply overcoming resistance, for a long period of time, would require less energy than repeatedly accelerating it as well as overcoming resistance.
We all know that driving at a constant 50 mph is more efficient in fuel than stopping and starting, if the car has travelled the same overall distance. Why would it be different causing the car to move with physical force, as apposed to a combustible liquid?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:
** the inertia remains the same for each instance - and when you push and let it coast to a stop, then catch up with it again and give it another push etc - you are theoretically not expending muscle energy when it is coasting ..

I believe that wrong. According to ChatGPT on the roller racers the time lost is mostly due to right at the start. Hence the name moment of inertia. So consecutive restarts means more inertia and more energy spent.

If that were true on the roller racers the hoop and the sphere would have the same impact energy at the flags.

[Fletcher]

dax .. and RH .. ChatGPT is wrong ! .. let's run thru a thought experiment to prove it ..

I have a car of 100 kgs mass - it has no wheels but does have sleds so I'll call it a sled - it can slide across a level smooth ice covered lake when it is pushed by you .. there are no moving parts at all in this sled and moving it sideways is entirely a linear action ..

If it has a mass of 100 kgs and it is a linear motion required then its inertia is also 100 kgs ..

Force = Mass x Acceleration -> since mass and inertia are interchangeable for a linear example we can visualize one long slow push from a standing start to the finish line with ever increasing velocity of the sled - we can visualize one big initial push and then let it coast across the finish line - or we can visualize a series of stop and start small pushes (but we need to run around in front and brake it) and coasting until the finish line is crossed ..

N.B. this thought experiment assumes there are no ordinary system losses to dissipative energy losses to compare apples to apples .. and it assumes each sled crosses the finish line at the same speed/velocity ..

In each case force (N) x displacement (m) = N-m - this is also the energy unit of a Joule - under the "Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP)" Work Done (fxd) = Energy .. in this thought experiment since mass = inertia then adding all the forces expended in each thought experiment adds to the same Joules of energy (for the same speed across the finish line) .. therefore inertia doesn't change as it is a measure of resistance to change in motion, whatever the motion state is when it is measured ..

[Robinhood46]

I still have a problem with that Fletcher.
If we are in an imaginary environment, where there are no ordinary losses, it wouldn't matter if you give it a good hard shove, with loads of force, or a gentle push with very little force. The moment you put it in motion, it will travel to the other side of the frozen lake, it will just be the time it takes to get there that would be different.
Therefore the different work involved will only affect the time it takes to accomplish the task.
The initial question didn't involve time, only the energy needed to move from a to b. So i am still not convinced that ChatGPT is talking nonsense, even if i know only too well it is perfectly capable.

[daxwc]

Inertia is the resistance to change correct?

ChatGPT
Yes, that's correct. Inertia is the property of an object to resist changes in its state of motion. This means that an object at rest tends to stay at rest, and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force. Inertia is described by Newton's First Law of Motion, which states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force. In essence, inertia is the resistance of an object to changes in its motion.

Once rolling, a mass takes less energy to keep rolling than having to restart it?

ChatGPT
Yes, that's correct. Once an object is in motion, it has kinetic energy associated with its movement. Overcoming the initial static friction and getting an object to start moving from rest requires more energy than maintaining its motion once it's already rolling.

This phenomenon is related to the concept of inertia. Objects at rest have a resistance to changes in their state of motion, and overcoming this resistance initially requires an input of energy. Once the object is in motion, it tends to stay in motion due to its inertia, and the energy required to maintain that motion is often less than what was needed to start it in the first place.

Real life experiences tell me its true.

[Fletcher]

I still have a problem with that Fletcher.
If we are in an imaginary environment, where there are no ordinary losses, it wouldn't matter if you give it a good hard shove, with loads of force, or a gentle push with very little force. The moment you put it in motion, it will travel to the other side of the frozen lake, it will just be the time it takes to get there that would be different.
Therefore the different work involved will only affect the time it takes to accomplish the task.
The initial question didn't involve time, only the energy needed to move from a to b. So i am still not convinced that ChatGPT is talking nonsense, even if i know only too well it is perfectly capable.

While you were posting RH I re-read my post and edited it to include the proviso that all sleds crossed the finish line at the same speed - therefore in a no loss environment for the thought experiment we can either have a long slow push to get to that speed or a short sharp fast push (bigger force shorter distance and time) to get to that speed to coast and get across the finish line .. to stop and start multiple times needs an opposite braking force/energy which otherwise would be done by normal frictional losses ..

Work thru the examples over at HyperPhysics Website below to get a feel for it ..

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

[eccentrically1]

the car is an apple; the discs and hoops are oranges.

Energy is energy. Both involve inertia.

The discs and hoops example involves inertia distributed about an axis in different forms.
Sure , one form takes longer to start. Because it has a different moment of inertia; a different resistance to acceleration even though it’s the same mass. Oranges.

[daxwc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roll ... nertia.ogv - most of the difference in time at the flag is due to getting the mass moving?

Bing AI:
Searching for: Rolling Racers - Moment of inertia
Generating answers for you…
Your personal and company data are protected in this chat
The video you’re referring to, “Rolling Racers - Moment of Inertia”, is a simulation that demonstrates how an object’s moment of inertia determines its resistance to rotational motion12. In the simulation, four objects are placed on a ramp and left to roll without slipping. Starting from rest, each object experiences an angular acceleration based on their moment of inertia12.
The video "Rolling Racers - Moment of Inertia" demonstrates how an object's moment of inertia affects its rotational motion. Four objects on a ramp roll without slipping, and each experiences angular acceleration based on their moment of inertia.
Objects:
• Hollow spherical shell (red)
• Solid ball (orange)
• Ring (green)
• Solid cylinder (blue)
Each object's center of mass travels with speed v_cm = ωr, where r is its radius, and ω is its angular speed. Friction causes a torque, leading to rotation. For objects of the same radius, mass is irrelevant; the geometric distribution of mass, represented by the value of I_k^2, determines acceleration. Objects with larger I_k values accelerate more slowly, affecting the time it takes to reach the flag.

Due to they are all doing different speeds at the flag they all have different impacts at the flag. Correct or not correct?

That’s correct! The speed of an object at the bottom of the ramp (at the flag) depends on its acceleration, which is influenced by its moment of inertia. The moment of inertia, in turn, depends on the distribution of mass in the object. Therefore, objects with different mass distributions (and thus different moments of inertia) will have different speeds when they reach the flag. This means they will also have different impacts at the flag. The greater the speed, the greater the impact. So, yes, your understanding is correct.

[Robinhood46]

I'm not too sure that the thought experiment is applicable to the question.
I think initially the question was, where does the energy go? Not, how much energy is going?
Maybe another thought experiment will help.
Push really hard against a wall for ten minutes, or push gently against a wall for 2 minutes. The wall will have moved exactly the same distance in the two cases. The energy spent will be different and the heat being transferred to the environment would be different.
The friction from the bearings and the air and the tyres, which are all absent on the iced over lake, are the reason more energy will be transferred to heat by a stop and start, than a long push.

[daxwc]

Ecc1: "The discs and hoops example involves inertia distributed about an axis in different forms.
Sure , one form takes longer to start. Because it has a different moment of inertia; a different resistance to acceleration even though it’s the same mass. Oranges."

Inertia apply to everything. No matter what mass you start from rest. If you repeatedly restart it takes more energy. It is not apples to oranges. It is apples to apples.




That’s correct! Overcoming inertia to start an object moving from rest does require energy. If an object is already in motion (sliding, for instance), it requires less energy to keep it moving due to its inertia. This is because an object in motion tends to stay in motion (Newton’s first law of motion).
However, in the real world, friction often plays a significant role. While sliding, an object will gradually slow down and stop due to the friction between it and the surface it’s sliding on. To keep the object sliding at a constant speed, a force must be continuously applied to counteract this friction.
If you stop and start the object repeatedly, you’ll need to overcome both the static friction (to start it moving) and the kinetic friction (to keep it moving), which can indeed require more energy overall compared to keeping it continuously in motion. So, your observation is quite accurate!