Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[daxwc]

Ecc1: I’m going to go find some kinetic energy and eat it.

Don’t forget to put a healthy dose of the condiment "static friction" on that or you will get indigestion.

[Fletcher]

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, the weight 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.

Start form first principles ..

All objects in contact with something will lose a little energy to dissipative loses .. this comes out of the energy budget available to do Work i.e. their momentums because this is a factor of velocity, and their KE's because this is a factor of velocity squared .... we also assume there are no slippage issues and contact is good ..

If the 2 rolling objects are the same in every regard except one is a hoop and the other a disk then we can assume those dissipative losses will be very similar for this exercise .. therefore these system friction losses will be equivalent for all intents and purposes wrt this thought experiment ..

Q. which one has the greater inertia ? Ans. the hoop has greater inertia than the disk from experimental evidence - IOW's it's MOI is higher than the disks which makes it harder to rotate ..

So we place the hoop and ring on a hard level surface separated by some arbitrary distance that suits ..

Q. how are we going to attach the tensioned spring (given elastic potential energy) between them ? Ans. we are going to attach 2 identical backing disks, 1 to the hoop and 1 to the disk - these have a center axle to pull on in a straight line ..

We manage all this and release the hoop and disk at the same instant .. the spring gives both objects the same applied force ..

However because the left hand side hoop has more inertia (greater MOI) than the right side disk it accelerates under that force at a slower rate (not much but noticeable) - this means the disk accelerates towards the center position at a higher acceleration and velocity ..

Remembering that both objects are losing some energy to system frictional losses etc which will reduce their achievable velocities a little - this affects both their mv (momentum) and their KE achievable ..

At the same time we know that f x t = m v and f x d = Work/KE - a calculation overstates their likely m v and KE unless some lowering in velocity is allowed for to compensate for these system losses - since they are not significant we ignore them ..

But the spring center point also moves towards the hoop with the greater MOI because it has the greater MOI ..

Conclusion .. the hoop moved a lesser distance at a lesser velocity and therefore has less mv and KE than the disk ..

End Of Thought Experiment ..

[johannesbender]

A thought experiment , imagine a perfect space-like environment , zero air , zero gravity fields , a perfect zero loss environment.

2 equal weights in every way is attached by a spring from each center , the weights are pulled apart from the center each by the exact same distance , then they are released at the exact same time .

The masses cannot dissipate energy in the form of sound , since sound needs a medium , the masses cannot dissipate energy through air resistance since there is no air , the masses cannot dissipate energy through friction of contact to other mediums , however the masses can dissipate energy through heat of the spring's material properties likely radiating out , and the weights collisions according to their material properties because there are no perfect zero energy dissipative materials .

If there were perfect non energy dissipative materials , we could conclude the system mentioned above given zero environment losses and zero material losses ,would perpetuate indefinitely.

But we have to accept these perfect scenario's and perfect materials , with zero losses , is hypothetical they do not not currently exist ,but if we had zero losses we could bounce balls perpetually , we could propel rockets indefinitely , we could roll wheels perpetually (if surface friction had no losses) , we could start a hand cranked flywheel and it would turn forever , but this is not the reality we live in .

There will always be losses in anything we could currently build , it is a fact forced by reality we have to accept whether we want to keep book of it or not.

What does it mean for the thought that Bessler was no fraud though ? anyone's guess is as good as mine atm , but we are way's off from taking on established facts yet.

[agor95]

Hi Fletcher

Thank you for your illustration giving us a base line example.

I have put forward the concept of something more fundamental to the conservation of energy [CoE].

I would like you to imaging the existence of a Virtual Induced Magnetic field; Like others put forward virtual particles.

When the left mass is accelerated a v.i.m. field is created which has an orientation. Lets say anti-clockwise magnetic field.
Magnetic fields are associated with a curl while electric fields are associated with a linear vector.

This notion helps model kinetics without being dependant of post Bessler laws of physics.

When the acceleration phase transits to a constant velocity vector the v.i.m. field collapses.
Work was done to create this v.i.m. field distortion.

The point here is the collision where the left mass decelerates. This results in a clockwise v.i.m. field.
This is countered by an anti-clockwise v.i.m. field in the right mass.

The more Foundational LAW is the v.i.m. has to be a low as possible.

Therefore the two v.i.m. fields have to cancel. So the magnitude of one needs too negate the other.

This results in the right object being accelerated and the left object's velocity being reducing.

Naturally this is the interchange process used too acceleration the left mass at the start and the future
event the right mass will encounter.

P.S. Analysing Kinetic interactions i.e. Pendulums, Ramps, Object Rotations & gravity affects using this concept
simplifies and grounds physic in my opinion.

Regards

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Thank you for your example of our current understanding and how it does prevent us seeing how Bessler's Wheel
or any device can acceleration up to an operational rotation rate.

[daxwc]

JB: But we have to accept these perfect scenario's and perfect materials , with zero losses , is hypothetical they do not not currently exist ,but if we had zero losses we could bounce balls perpetually , we could propel rockets indefinitely , we could roll wheels perpetually (if surface friction had no losses) , we could start a hand cranked flywheel and it would turn forever , but this is not the reality we live in .

There will always be losses in anything we could currently build , it is a fact forced by reality we have to accept whether we want to keep book of it or not..

I understand all that JB but if we don’t understand exactly all energy sinks how will you ever figure out an energy gain without stumbling on it?

So because there is energy losses we shouldn’t do thought experiments? If energy can dissipate that fast though inertia either to heat or just transformed into rotational KE then you can bring it back just as fast.

In the end most will come out to weights path.

[eccentrically1]

What does it mean for the thought that Bessler was no fraud though ?

His principle had to include an external torque to overcome the tiny friction in the 54 day test.
There should be no debate about that given the sims we've seen here and youtube experiments that confirm conservation laws.
If the external torque was manmade, then he was a fraud.
If it was environmental, then he wasn't.
It's that simple. Was the prime torquer a maid (possible) or not?

Were the first two wheels unbalanced hoops or unbalanced disks? Were the last two balanced hoops or balanced disks?
(Accelerated easily and settled to steady rpms).
During operation did they change from hoop to disk or disk to hoop? Or none of the above?
I.e., do the "swapping places" comments mean they had a constant moment of inertia?

[eccentrically1]

If energy can dissipate that fast though inertia either to heat or just transformed into rotational KE then you can bring it back just as fast.

That's the problem with heat loss or any other type of loss, once it's gone you can't bring it back. That's part of the law that would have to be broken.

[daxwc]

Serious Ecc1 you can't reverse a heat sink?

[eccentrically1]

Not at 100% efficiency.
Do you think he cut his losses with a heat sink?

[johannesbender]

I understand all that JB but if we don’t understand exactly all energy sinks how will you ever figure out an energy gain without stumbling on it?

I don't believe in energy gains as in creation of energy , I believe if it is possible , that it could be an excess/left-over energy by accumulation/build-up of energy due to less expenditure of energy , an unmentioned trick/principle , that negates the normal energy losses of failed designs .

So because there is energy losses we shouldn’t do thought experiments? If energy can dissipate that fast though inertia either to heat or just transformed into rotational KE then you can bring it back just as fast.

True you can convert it again , but that's where the losses manifests , there is no known method to convert and recover 100% yet , I believe losses due to conversions of energy to other forms of energy is beyond my scope .

My opinion is not that experiments and hypothetical constructs shouldn't be done , on the contrary I believe it should be done but I firmly believe in the laws until its proven wrong , and that if it was possible for Bessler then it must be (imo according to my summations) because it did not violate laws to create energy out of nothingness , there is a source of energy and it is not nothingness imo.

Anyway each to their own ,I don't have a gun up to anyone's head , its just my opinion being shared too.

[agor95]

There is a possibility someone may have studied this related hoops or disks idea.
If you see the link then all well and good. However it may provide an example of a reveres heat sink!

Air blown in a cyclonic flow around the inside of a pipe.

At slow speeds it is in effect a disk and at high speeds a hoop.
To reduce friction the pipe is rotated along it's length.

The air is compressed onto the internal wall of the pipe thus heating the pipe.
The air is introduced via a cone funnel with direction vents.

The funnel & pipe are metal so air leaving the cone into the low pressure zone will be cooled.
The pipe is heated by the air in the pipe's high pressure zone.

As the air continues to flow the difference in temperature from the inlet end to the outlet end increases.

The energy to cause the air flow and cylinder rotation comes from the output vents at the end of the pipe.
The air output is heated by pipe and jetted flow causes pipe rotation.

Just a thought experiment.

[agor95]

Duplicate Deleted

P.S. A Bessler Wheel does not need a complex cyclotron heat pump jet turbine. It's wood could not survive the revs or heat.

[eccentrically1]

That sounds complex so you'd have to show how weights would be doing this air flow in pipes in a wheel.
A drawing or sim would be helpful for that.

[daxwc]

JB: I don't believe in energy gains as in creation of energy , I believe if it is possible , that it could be an excess/left-over energy by accumulation/build-up of energy due to less expenditure of energy , an unmentioned trick/principle , that negates the normal energy losses of failed designs .

...that if it was possible for Bessler then it must be (imo according to my summations) because it did not violate laws to create energy out of nothingness , there is a source of energy and it is not nothingness imo.

How is it you know it an energy creation/gain just because it came outside what you thought was a closed system? Do you know where all the energy is hidden in the universe? Is dark energy always around us or is it in pockets? Nobody knows. When I say create I mean pull from somewhere obviously I don’t know where, just like I don’t understand static friction.

Nobody understand inertia or gravity. It seems to be left over side effect.