Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[daxwc]

You
You fill up a wagon so much that you expend lots of energy to just move it. But if you get it going and keep momentum up it get easier to pull and lets say you run a 100 feet with it. What was the hardest part? The initial getting the inertia moving.

Now think instead of pulling it the whole hundred feet in one shot you pull it a foot and have to start off the inertia energy expenditure again. Now it takes a hundred of those hard pulls.

But both wagons only went a 100 feet; but you spent way more energy one wagon. Where does the hidden energy missing off the ledger reside?

BingAI:
Copilot
The “hidden” energy you’re referring to is actually the energy required to overcome inertia. Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity, which includes changes to both speed and direction. It is directly proportional to the object’s mass.

In your first scenario, the hardest part is indeed getting the wagon moving from rest, i.e., overcoming its inertia. This requires a force to accelerate it from rest to a certain velocity, and this force application results in an energy expenditure, known as work done1. Once the wagon is in motion, it’s easier to keep it moving due to the principle of momentum (mass times velocity). If there’s no opposing force (like friction or air resistance), theoretically, no extra energy is needed to keep the wagon moving at a constant speed1.

In your second scenario, you’re repeatedly overcoming the wagon’s inertia, i.e., you’re repeatedly doing the “hardest part”. Each stop-and-start requires you to expend energy to overcome inertia and get the wagon moving again. Hence, you end up doing more work overall compared to the first scenario1.

So, the “missing” energy in the second scenario isn’t really missing; it’s just that more energy is expended in repeatedly overcoming inertia. This illustrates the principle of energy conservation: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed. In this case, the extra energy you expend is transformed into kinetic energy of the wagon each time you start moving it2.

You
But I expended more energy in the same distance and it is not tied up in kinetic energy anymore.

Copilot:
That’s correct. The extra energy you expended in the second scenario isn’t stored as kinetic energy in the wagon. Instead, it’s dissipated as heat due to the work done against friction.

When you stop and start the wagon repeatedly, each time you start, you have to overcome both the inertia of the wagon and the friction between the wagon and the ground. This requires more force, and hence more energy. When you apply this force, some of the energy is transferred to the wagon as kinetic energy, but some is also lost as heat due to the friction.

This is why you feel more tired in the second scenario: you’re not just moving the wagon, you’re also generating heat! This is a manifestation of the law of energy conservation: the total energy in a closed system (you + the wagon + the Earth) remains constant. If you’re using more energy to move the wagon, that energy has to come from somewhere (your body), and it has to go somewhere (the kinetic energy of the wagon and heat).

I don't believe a word of it. It is just fancy accounting because they don't know where the energy goes. They can't say it went to inertia so suddenly something is made up called Static Friction to take the energy in the form of heat.

I can guarantee my car tires get hotter at high speed than starting and coasting repeatedly.

[Fletcher]

Hey dax .. regarding your thought experiment .. Energy is both Work Done ( f x d ) and capacity to do Work ..

You don't mention whether you reach a certain velocity (m/s) and cease pulling the carts and let them coast to the finish line or not ..

Either way to get them moving from a standing start you need to apply a pulling force - this is enough to overcome static friction and then rolling frictions (not counting air frictions) - so depending how large the force in Newton's is you apply and the mass ( for linear motion mass is inertia ) you are moving will dictate the constant acceleration and velocity at any distance the cart will have ..

This is work done = force x displacement .. if you have a target velocity and you reach it you only then need apply a small force to maintain that velocity and overcome rolling frictions .. add up the separate sections of f x d to give total Nm or J's - ** if no target velocity the same force is applied the full 100 feet and it keeps accelerating all the way ..

In the start and stop scenario you also apply the same force which gives the cart the same acceleration - but after a short distance you stop pulling and it coasts to a stop as rolling frictions slow it down - then you give it the same force again to establish the same acceleration which also overcomes the static friction et etc .. you note the velocity your cart has when it crosses the finish line (assume the same as the one pull scenario for the exercise) - you add these periodic f x d together and note almost the same f x d (Nm) for both scenarios - except the start and stop was a bit more Work Done because of more static frictions assuming static frictions is higher than rolling frictions ..

[johannesbender]

explain the difference between static friction , kinetic friction and inertia

ChatGPT
Sure, let's discuss the differences between static friction, kinetic friction, and inertia:

Static Friction:
Definition: Static friction is the force that opposes the initiation of motion between two surfaces that are in contact and at rest relative to each other.
Characteristics: It prevents an object from moving when a force is applied but the object has not yet started moving.
Magnitude: The force of static friction adjusts itself to match and oppose the applied force until a certain limit is reached, known as the limiting friction. The static frictional force can vary and is always equal to or less than the force applied to initiate motion.

Kinetic Friction:
Definition: Kinetic friction is the force that opposes the motion of two surfaces that are in contact and moving relative to each other.
Characteristics: It acts in the direction opposite to the direction of motion.
Magnitude: The force of kinetic friction is generally constant for a given pair of materials, regardless of the speed of motion. It can be

Inertia:
Definition: Inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. It is a property of matter and is related to the mass of an object.
Characteristics: Objects at rest tend to stay at rest, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Inertia is an inherent property of mass and is not a force itself.

In summary, static friction prevents the initiation of motion, kinetic friction opposes the motion of objects already in motion, and inertia is the inherent resistance of an object to changes in its state of motion.

They are all different things , however I don't wish to get in to this .
............

On the topic of energy losses and Bessler that was adamant that he was honest , I think if Bessler was not a lying fraud then it must be because the principle did not violate laws , it must be one of those two things .

On the topic of clues , I think the only real clues for me is that (according to my interpretations) , he acknowledged the law of the levers to be steadfast (don't waste your time here) , and that weights had to be lifted again if they fall (learn to accept the facts) , and he acknowledged frictional losses (be aware of energy losses) , and he left the TP as a wonder clue (if you can discover it and apply it).

[Fletcher]

I think if Bessler was not a lying fraud then it must be because the principle did not violate laws , it must be one of those two things .

On the topic of clues , I think the only real clues for me is that (according to my interpretations) , he acknowledged the law of the levers to be steadfast (don't waste your time here) , and that weights had to be lifted again if they fall (learn to accept the facts) , and he acknowledged frictional losses (be aware of energy losses) , and he left the TP as a wonder clue (if you can discover it and apply it).

Yup jb .. he said it was in Nature's Laws IIRC .. but obviously well buried or camouflaged .. or we do not think outside the box you described above enough, if at all ..

[daxwc]

JB: They are all different things , however I don't wish to get in to this .

You are right JB they are exactly the same thing. Yet they interchange it so to plug their account holes.
They can’t have energy disappearing into inertia so they transfer it to heat.

What really makes more sense; that friction got less when you get something rolling or that the mass is moving and now has inertia of its own moving in that direction.

I didn’t gain any energy. I lost different amounts.

[daxwc]

Fletcher: You don't mention whether you reach a certain velocity (m/s) and cease pulling the carts and let them coast to the finish line or not .

After a 100 feet it doesn’t matter if I coasted, but Ok lets coast off the inertia/momentum.


I am not saying there is no friction. If I hammer in a nail into wood it gets hot. That said it doesn’t get hotter by giving it 10 whacks as opposed to one and sink it to the head.

Our laws are not wrong but how we view them is flawed. I don’t know where the difference in energy went most likely into inertia.

[johannesbender]

@dax: https://youtu.be/KMVs1v1Atyw

[daxwc]

JB my example had a set distance the nail went into the wood. That being to the head.

[daxwc]

.


https://cosmolearning.org/video-lecture ... n-inertia/

So in the demonstration at 4:13 in the video. There is no static friction. The bottom string breaks due to pulling the bottom string too fast. The top string breaks when the force happens too slow.

So now we fix the accounting ledger with heat into the string, static friction has to run away. Although it is the same phenomenon only different we make up two different compensations.

If you tug and nothing happened then the energy went?
It went to inertia with no motion.

[daxwc]

.


https://cosmolearning.org/video-lecture ... -momentum/
In the following video starting at :23 secs he proves the energies of both are not the same at 3:12

But he doesn’t explain where the energy went on the big inertia. The missing energy is tied up where?

Did I not create two different energies with the same force?

[Fletcher]

https://cosmolearning.org/video-lecture ... -momentum/

In the following video starting at :23 secs he proves the energies of both are not the same at 3:12

But he doesn’t explain where the energy went on the big inertia. The missing energy is tied up where?

Did I not create two different energies with the same force?

He puts elastic potential energy into the rubber band by separating the cars - this creates a force i.e. f = m a => therefore f x t = m v (momentum) and f x d = KEt and f x h = GPE .. ( Work Energy Equivalence Principle ( WEEP ) - a tenet of Classical Physics )

He releases the carts and the elastic force goes to Work .. it accelerates the heavier cart at a lesser rate than the lighter cart - both have the same/identical momentum gains i.e. m v or p .. n. b. with the lighter cart having a greater v component and where KEt is proportional to v^2 ..

However they have different KEt's (capacity to do Work) where Work = f x d ..

The heavier cart has less KEt than the lesser weight cart because of that v^2 relationship .. this is why momentum and energy are different in that Energy is either Work Done or Capacity To Do Work, while Momentum is not a traditional measure of Work Capability ..

And to confirm it he surmises that the f x d (Work Done or Capacity To Do Work under WEEP) on each cart is quite different reflecting the KEt's gained for each - in fact in an ideal experiment with no frictional heat, acoustic, or vibration losses they would be the same units and amounts therefore Work and Energy are interchangeable "equivalence" ..

What he doesn't mention is that the center of the rubber band is relocated horizontally towards the heavier car with more mass/inertia - so the elastic energy stored in the band released as a force not only causes a f x d Work Done and equal KEt gain (Capacity to do Work) i.e. 1 for 1 swap .. but also some of its force moves the band center itself (which has its own inertia) across the table towards the heavier cart with more mass and inertia .. and the system loses a small amount of that force transaction into dissipative energy losses ..

[Tarsier79]

Hey T79 - can you give your example of destroying energy in WM2D ? .. I can build the sim and put up an animation for everyone to see and consider your observations ..

See below: Inelastic collision. A small mass has 11.5J and crashes into a stationary larger mass. The resulting energy is around 3J.

If you hold your hands over the computer screen, you might feel the 8J of heat.

[Fletcher]

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



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

[daxwc]

So now in the So now in the Julius Sumner Miller energy – momentum experiment I do the same setup with the rubber-band between a hoop and a disk. The radius is the same, and they weight is the same, and the mass is the same and contact area to the ground is the same. Yet even though all this is the same they both produce different energies.

[eccentrically1]

I’m going to go find some kinetic energy and eat it.