Curious Questions

[Michael]

Who feels Bessler came to his device by;

1. A. His intellect alone.
B. By divine vision.

2. Who feels it is;
A. A true gravity motor?
B. A real motor, but one that falls under every other energy conservative motor?
C. A clever fraud that was purprotrated by,
1A. Bessler himself.
1B. The Count and his inner government who's agenda was to make any possible real pereptual motion inventors come forward with their devices. Done so because claims by others had been made, because alchemists-inventors were accustomed to doing their own work in secret, and because the conservation of energy rule had not been established yet.

[grim]

1.A

2.A

[ovyyus]

1.A (plus a little bit of good fortune)

2.B

[jim_mich]

1. Part A.& B.
The human intellect (brain) is interfaced with the human mind (a holographic ether energy image entity/spirit) which can comunicate with other ether energy entities/spirits (devine vision).

2. A.
A true gravity powered motor.

[MrTim]

1. A + C (persistence/luck)
2. A
3. ??

[John Collins]

1.A because I don't subscribe to divine vision, and he got there by blood sweat and tears.
2.A. - for reasons see below.
Not C.

But I must point out that in 1B, the conservation of energy rule may not have been definitively written by 1712 but Huygens, Newton, Leibniz et al, all subscribed to the belief in constancy of energy, and therefore conservation of energy, as do I. But this rule does not apply as gravity is an externalsource of energy.

The Principle of Law of the Conservation of Energy was formulated by Clerk Maxwell: "The total energy of any body or system of bodies is a quantity which can neither be increased nor diminished by any mutual action of these bodies, though it may be transformed into any other forms of which energy is susceptible". This applies within an isolated system and does not exclude the possiblity of using gravity as an external source of energy.

Also applies to the first law of thermodynamics - the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. It still does not exclude gravity as an external energy source.

John Collins

[Jeff L.]

1. A
2. A

[Michael]

Hi John,

I still have to disagree with you on your opinion of the conservation of energy. Physicists would agree that any device that ran on gravity alone would be counter to the conservation of energy rule. Typically, gravity can create a movement but something always running by gravity is creating energy. If you do the math you'll figure it out. The arguement that gravity is an external source of energy is redundant. The rays from the sun, as well as wind, and water from a dam...etc, are also external. The energy from these is always USED, as in consumed. Gravity is not. A gravity motor is a perpetual motion machine. Period.

Mike

[Jonathan]

I think that's the point Micheal, that there is some mechanism we don't understand that freely refurbishes the energy taken from gravity. If we assume that there are PMM all over the place, one might wonder if they would eventually drain the planet of its gravity, permanently removing its ability to attract other matter. Granted, that is a long shot...

[John Collins]

Hi Mike,

Starting with your last comment first

A gravity motor is a perpetual motion machine.

, a perpetual motion machine is one which continues to run for ever or until its parts wear out, with no additional input of energy. A gravity wheel receives an input of energy every time a weight falls, so it is definitely not a PM machine

Your next previous comment,

The rays from the sun, as well as wind, and water from a dam...etc, are also external. The energy from these is always USED, as in consumed. Gravity is not

Yes wind, water and sun energy are external as is gravity, but their energy is not consumed, only changed to another form. You cannot state that gravitational energy is consumed either, only that it is altered. Are you suggesting that if it was used to drive a machine continuously it would show a reduction in magnitude? Presumably you can detect a loss in magnitude of the wind when it drives a windmill too.

Finally I would take issue with your initial comment,

Typically, gravity can create a movement but something always running by gravity is creating energy. If you do the math you'll figure it out. The arguement that gravity is an external source of energy is redundant

Something running by gravity, to use your words, does not create energy, it converts gravitational energy to another use - falling down energy, into rotating energy, just the same as in a windmill or a water wheel. I have done the maths and there is nothing to prove that gravity cannot be so used. Your statement that the arguement that gravity is an external source of energy is redundant, (your words) does not make sense. Why redundant? Redundant means supefluous to requirement. That arguement is not superfluous to requirements, it explains the whole thing.

But Mike, you have your view and I have mine - no hard feelings I hope.

John Collins

[Fletcher]

1. (A) He was undoubtably an "Intuitive Genius" combined with unsatiable enthusiasm for, or belief in, the task that kept him at it. We can summise where that intuition & drive came from. Tesla was another like him in a different field. Some would attribute their level of dedication & abilities from purely egotistical sources to completely devine intervention. I prefer to think of it as good genes combined with work ethic & perhaps the ability to tap into a mass consciencous from time to time.

2. (A) A purely gravity powered motor. We (I at least) have great difficulty even satisfactorily explaining what gravity is, let alone whether it fits neatly into the law of "conservation of energy" etc. I do believe it is or acts as a conservative force BUT that it can be tapped into as JB did. I continue to choose to believe that he achieved it & that it can be done again.

He undoubtably achieved an "Unbalanced Wheel Effect" but it may not have been always out of balance (OOB). i.e. two possibilities, sometimes OOB or always OOB. I think most of the time the mech was OOB within a cycle.

An example that it can be done was ironically mentioned by Michael some time ago where a circular metal rim ring held vertical with cross hairs (flexible spokes) of rubber contained a central axle. A heat source is used to heat the rubber arms (at one position) causing one arm at a time to tension up (contract) so changing the COG. The rim then rotates due gravity. The limitation is of course that the rubber spoke must cool & return (expand) to its original state in order for the wheel to rotate (due thermal efficiency). Providing the heat source continues the wheel will rotate. JB achieved it not by using an extra source or energy (such as heat in the previous example) but by using gravity itself.

I have often wondered what would happen if the earths surface were littered with gravity powered OU machines. I tend to think that the gravitational effect would not decrease but that the earths spin could slow down lengthening each day minutely, or perhaps aswell the length of a year increase as a result as the earths velocity thru space slowing ? All speculation on my part :-)

Fletcher

[ovyyus]

I think Bessler would not have been quite so particular about whether or not his wheel was purely gravity driven - he wanted to create PM by any means possible and collect the promised reward.

MT is full of ideas that explore 'open' thermo-mechanical systems. Bessler's definition of "true perpetual motion" was a product of his times and this allowed him to consider solutions that we probably discount.

As an example, in London in the 1760's Cox invented and built a clock that never needed winding up http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi527.htm Cox's clock mechanism was driven by environmental energy, a ratcheted barometer, which made the clock appear like it was a perpetual motion machine. Actually, Cox believed it to be true PM. His belief was a product of his times.

My point is that Bessler left no stone unturned in his quest for a solution and everything was 'fair game'. IMO, there is no evidence to support the belief that Bessler solved his problem by creating a purely gravity driven PM. Likewise there is no direct evidence to support the notion that he invented a mechanism that was driven by environmental energy.

One thing is certain, Bessler was clever and resourcefull and considered any direction that might help him solve his problem. I think we could do much worse than emmulate this approach and maintain an equally open mind.

[Michael]

Hi John,

No of course no hard feelings. Let me answer the following statements, (previous ones by me were under the assumption that we agreeded that the general rule of the conservation was "generally" true")

>Hi Mike,

Starting with your last comment first
Quote:
A gravity motor is a perpetual motion machine.
, a perpetual motion machine is one which continues to run for ever or until its parts wear out, with no additional input of energy. A gravity wheel receives an input of energy every time a weight falls, so it is definitely not a PM machine

Actually John a perpetual motion machine is any machine that violates the conservation of energy rule, regardless of whether is can really run forever or not. No machine can really run forever, all parts decay eventually. A violation of the conservation of energy rule meaning a machine that creates energy.

>Your next previous comment,
Quote:
The rays from the sun, as well as wind, and water from a dam...etc, are also external. The energy from these is always USED, as in consumed. Gravity is not
Yes wind, water and sun energy are external as is gravity, but their energy is not consumed, only changed to another form. You cannot state that gravitational energy is consumed either, only that it is altered. Are you suggesting that if it was used to drive a machine continuously it would show a reduction in magnitude? Presumably you can detect a loss in magnitude of the wind when it drives a windmill too.

No no no John. First of all by consumed I meant under the assuption that we agreed in the conservation of energy, namely that energy is neither created or destroyed but changes form. Therefore there is nothing wrong in using the word consumed. Or absorbed, or anything else. Consumed does not mean destroyed. In this context it means used. Of course the items consuming said energy from the sun, etc. gain mass/energy.
Which brings me to the point I was placing this argument on, that you misunderstood. Heres an example. With the sun, the mass of the sun is converted to energy, via nuclear reactions, it radiates outwards, and eventually the sun will loose most if not all of its mass do to this event. With gravity, the inverse is true. As a mass pulls other masses towards it, it gains mass. In otherwords it adds the mass of the other objects that have fallen to its surface, to its own. As it gains mass it gains gravity. For any mass to leave the larger mass it MUST use the same amount of energy to do so. And that's the point. There is friction. There is energy radiated away as sound. There is the demonstration of the wheel lifting items. A constantly running wheel like this demonstrates an excess. A creation of energy. Unless of course it used other things besides just gravity.

Mike

[Fletcher]

If we assume that the wheels were powered by gravity & one other force (eg environmental heat/temperature, barametric air pressure etc) then JB created a differential or gradient from the immediate environment enclosed in the wheel, that is the principle behind all motors. If we accept that then we can easily accept that his wheels were just like every other type of motor & relied upon a naturally occuring or man made differential to provide the motive force & this is what provided the excess energy to do work (the ol' rob Peter to pay Paul theory). We can all rest easy safe in the knowledge that there's nothing new here just that we haven't stumbled on how he did it as yet ! Why is it taking so long ?

Alternatively that was not what he did & when he says that the wheel gathered force by the swinging of the weights then that is exactly what he means. Baring in mind his promise to let them lop of his head should he be proved a fraud. I wouldn't want to argue semantics with an unhappy purchaser of the wheel who felt he was duped & it wasn't powered by gravity alone as stated & I'd made that particular promise. My credibility would be in tatters also - particularly bad look in the 18th century!

If it was powered by gravity in the manner John C says, the analogy the sevanious wind mill (we only have analogies until we work out how he did it) then we are trying to rediscover a mechanism that acts like a water wheel in a river current accept the current is gravity (but gravity is a conservative force that shouldn't be able to be used like this).

From JB's demonstrations it does exactly as Mike said & captures energy for useful work, the implication being that there can be no free lunches & the piper must be paid (love my metaphores) i.e. energy out, to do work, must have a cost/penalty somewhere else. This is what is so intriguing ! If it was gravity alone just how can it replentish itself & what is the environmental penalty besides sound & heat etc ?

IMO this I think is the more inspiring challenge to solve though I respect the other point of view & would dearly love to know the answer either way. The problem is I just haven't heard of any credible alternatives except for nuclear, battery, etc with their obvious problems :-0 If you can shed some light it would be welcome.

Aword of caution : Following my particular logic may or may not lead to an answer but then again that is why we are having this discussion & sharing ideas.

Fletcher

[John Collins]

Putting the definitions of PM and what constitutes conservation of energy to one side for a moment, consider this.

No matter how we arrange them, the weights in gravity wheels, reach a point during rotation when they need a little push, against gravity, in order for them to continue to rotate the wheel. Now some are suggesting that we can achieve this by using some other force, barometric or spring or magnetic for instance. All of these are possibilities and may have been achieved in some cases.

My belief is that there is a way of achieving this using gravity and that is where many split from me. You may recall that Bessler said that his weights acted in pairs - my point is that it seems to me to be possible to arrange for the second weight to fall in such a way that its fall is timed to knock the first weight over the point in rotation where it had stuck.

If this was possible with the aid of a spring or a magnet why could it not be also possible with gravity.

If this were possible the wheel would be totally gravity-driven despite the fact that such a device aparently defies the conservation of energy rules.

John Collins