The weighty influence of Newton

[digitaljez]

I have discovered the answer. I have done component tests with real models to demonstrate to myself wether it is feasible and I can not see how this can not work. Everything points to it working.
But I have not put it all together into a final fully working model because it violates the laws of thermodynamics and therefore can not possibly work. I will think about it for a few days and if the flaw in my thinking does not become obvious I am going to be compelled to build it (just in case).

We have all been here before, so it would be interesting to know how Newton influences your decision to build. I have formulated some answers but, no doubt, there will be far more interesting reasons some of us persist.

[coylo]

The problem with not building is that ideas will only linger in your mind. If you build it, then get an answer - at least then you'll know for certain and can move on to the next idea.

Only after a build can you get "closure" and that peace of mind.......no ifs or buts!

I've built so many failures and learned from them - that I can tell if most ideas will work or not on paper. If an idea confuses me then that would require an experimental build.

EDIT:
.....and by the way, before anyone mentions the likes of WMD2, nothing can compare to a physical realization.
Computer programs deprive you of your senses......I think you'll need all of them to crack this project.

Only by being in the presense of something will you be able to understand and have feel for what's going on. You'll need to take it all in!

[Paul]

Digitaljez wrote:

I have discovered the answer

wow! If I had the certainty to have found the solution I would not hesitate to build a prototype.

Paul

[digitaljez]

There was a time I would not have hesitated but since I find that I am certain I have found the answer at least once a week I have lost that sense of urgency. I have come to accept that my ability to delude myself far exceeds my ability to find a solution so I just enjoy the thrill of having discovered the current 'sure fire' method until realization or a prototype bring me down to earth.
I will check through MT and Ken's gallery (He should publish his own MT) and if it has not already been tested I will have to build it (unless I recognise that my thinking is wrong beforehand). A small detail like Newton's laws won't deter me.

[rlortie]

Newton may have got the known facts in line. But anyone with an IQ that puts them sitting under an apple tree with apples falling, leaves reason of doubt!

If laws are made to be broke, theories stand a better chance.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Well, good luck dig. I selected the option "Newton is right, I won't build anything that looks like it violates" because its the closest to my perspective. In reality (if it were available) I would have chosen the option "Newton is right, I build if it conforms to known physics" which of course all builds so far do, they just don't work in the way I hoped :)

[gearhead]

Fletcher we are in total agreement, the mechanism breaks no laws. Contrary it uses them to the fullest.

[Fletcher]

Yes indeed, I believe so.

[digitaljez]

As I see it the concept of a self turning wheel appears to be a violation but the driving force has to conform to known physics (obviously). I imagine it as a self-sustaining feedback loop - some devices placed around the edge of a wheel operate in a way that causes the wheel to overbalance and rotate (Bessler's swinging remark possibly ?) and the rotation of the wheel causes the pendula to swing...which causes the wheel to overbalance - which causes the wheel to rotate...which causes the pendula to swing...etc. This must involve the conversion of some energy to maintain the movement let alone do work and the only possible candidate seems to be gravity.
What appears to be impossible - the turning wheel - will be explained by the fact each of the devices are conforming to known physics. It will still cause problems since either a closed system can create energy or gravity is not a conservative force or there is some, as yet, unexplored property not yet recognised by physics or the concept of energy needs modifying.

[ken_behrendt]

I think that Bessler's wheels did not really violate any of our known laws of mechanics. He found some sort of self-adjusting, automatic mechanism that would use springs to shift the weights in such a manner that the CG of a rotating array of weights would always stay on one side of the wheel's axle.

As individual mechanisms rotated around the wheel's rim, their springs would alternately stretch and contract and this action created the shifting in the mechanism's weight that, ultimately, managed to keep the CG of all of the weights on the descending side of the wheel.

Well, as members of this Discussion Board all know, I have tested many, many designs in an attempt to find Bessler's secret mechanism. Sometimes I am convinced that my next design has got to be the answer and, at other times, I am completely out of fresh approaches to try.

I think that a solution will soon be found because there are just too many people working on this mystery worldwide. Unfortunately, they tend to work in isolation from each other, as I did for decades, and there is much wasteful duplication in their efforts. However, with the rise of the internet, this problem can, to a big degree, be eliminated. Once something that works is found, hopefully, it can pave the way to devices with more impressive power outputs than Bessler's inventions displayed.


ken

[graham]

Since an overbalancing design with an offset C of G seems to be the logical approach it is likely to be the wrong approach.

Yes the solution must work within Newtons laws.

Graham

[Madmax]

IMHO the Newtonian laws have nothing to do with the PM machine. The reason of unsuccessful replication of Bessler's wheel is that we all tried to build a machine wchich attempted to break these laws. We just need a new designing approach, far from the old Newton laws. I think that there are different laws who can lead to the working PMM and they are not contradictory to them. But they are much more difficult to discover and the falling apple, being a base for Newtonian laws, is too simple for the discovery of the new ones.
So it is the time for change our point of view. My newest design is an attempt to make something different than eternal falling apple inside the machine. I have invented (with my brother's help) some different way to keep the wheel turning. Even if the machine will not work this idea can probably open an enormous field for exploration and finally lead to the Design. We hope soon. :)

max

[hopeful]

Television Program: In the U.S. this next week, PBS stations will be showing a Nova documentary "Newton's Dark Secrets." Check your local listings, or pbs.org for a station in your area. Transcripts may also be available.

Newton's laws are pretty broad. Their inverse is that additional input is required for additional output. A perpetual machine may use gravity as its additional input, as in a gravity wheel. This means the conservative laws of physics are not violated, even though science doesn't yet regard gravity as a possible energy source. What remains is the design of the machine.

The eyewitness accounts, certification, and involvement of nobility lend weighty credence to Bessler's success. Ignorance of these historical facts allows science and popular opinion to maintain that PM is impossible. This is based on the somewhat circular logic that since no one has been able to build one, it isn't possible to build one. Here's an article from this site's links page: http://www.alternativescience.com/perpetual_motion.htm.

The fastest way to stop a design from spinning in my brain is to build it.

Chris

[KAS]

I am aware of the laws of physics but I choose ignorance of the complexities involved. It allows me to go forth and explore without being burdened by the shackles of impossibility.

[digitaljez]

Ken - I think your description and mine are two ways of looking at the same process. Your weights are the spring mechanism whereas I used pendulums but the principle would seem to be the same. Unless the alternate stretching and contracting is not caused by the wheel's rotation, but then what is causing it ?
As I understand your idea, the individual spring mechanisms distribute their weight, depending on their position at any one moment, so that the CG of all the mechanisms is never directly below the axel. So your mechanisms cause the wheel to overbalance, it rotates, your mechanisms adjust (because their positions changed) keeping the wheel overbalanced, it rotates, your mechanisms adjust...etc. It is like a donkey being led by the rider dangling a carrot from a stick. This, of course, is a seamless ongoing process resulting in PM.
The question is, is this not a violation of the laws of physics ? To move the mechanisms so they overbalance the wheel requires energy supplied by the falling of these same mechanisms. This is a no-no - Second Law of Thermodynamics - energy has to enter the system to maintain it.
Since we believe this is how Bessler did it energy must be entering the system, but from where ? It has to be the force acting on the weights i.e. gravity. But those meanies in white lab coats won't let us have that either.
OK then. Our mechanism is creating energy.....errr....damn that first law !
I can't see a way out. We are going to have to turn outlaw. John Collins and his merry men.