I can't submit a vote because I think my vote is not available, but the nearest to it would be Newton was right but there are exceptions to every rule.
However, he never said PM was impossible, in fact he drew a design for a theoretical PM machine, which shielded gravity from one side of it, I included a copy of it in my first book. Obviously the design relied on some gravity-shielding material being invented which was certainly impossible then, but the fact remains that he must have thought of gravity as a potential source of energy for such a device.
He never expressed an opinion about Bessler's machine either publicly or privately, as far as the records show.
To me the possibility of a gravity-wheel, which is my preferred description of such a machine, is not outlawed by Newton's rules or laws. I am writing a new piece on why this should be so, for my new book but I'm publishing it on my web site for comments. I'll post a message here for those interested once it is finished and posted on my web site.
John Collins
The weighty influence of Newton
Moderator: scott
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: The weighty influence of Newton
digitaljez wrote:
On the surface, this would certainly appear to be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamcs. But, when we finally achieve such a wonderous device, then I believe it will soon be realized that the energy it outputs is coming directly from the weights within it as their masses are very, very slowly converted into the kinetic energy that the wheel outputs. Thus, in reality, the Second Law is not being violated.
Is this really "perpetual motion"? Well, if one's definition of PM is that the device displaying it must create energy out of nothing, then this process can not be considered to be PM, but, rather, just a subtle cyclic way of draining the energy out of matter. However, since Bessler's biggest wheels were only outputting energy at the rate of a few tens of watts and contained, perhaps, hundreds of pounds of lead weights, his wheels could probably have run continuously, assuming no malfunctions, for tens of thousands of years before there was a significant reduction in the masses of their lead weights. That's good enough for me.
When we finally obtain such a gravity wheel, I fully expect its existence to lead to another law of motion, but not another law of thermodynamics.
ken
Actually, no...this type of mechanism would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the wheel turns and its various mechanisms self-adjust themselves in the Earth's gravity field, the offset composite CG of the rotating array of weights will neither drop nor rise. Rather, it will remain "floating" in space. However, even though the CG is not moving, the very fact that it is offset from the wheel's axle means that the CG will give rise to a torque that will accelerate the mass of the wheel and, thus, increase it's kinetic energy.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.
On the surface, this would certainly appear to be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamcs. But, when we finally achieve such a wonderous device, then I believe it will soon be realized that the energy it outputs is coming directly from the weights within it as their masses are very, very slowly converted into the kinetic energy that the wheel outputs. Thus, in reality, the Second Law is not being violated.
Is this really "perpetual motion"? Well, if one's definition of PM is that the device displaying it must create energy out of nothing, then this process can not be considered to be PM, but, rather, just a subtle cyclic way of draining the energy out of matter. However, since Bessler's biggest wheels were only outputting energy at the rate of a few tens of watts and contained, perhaps, hundreds of pounds of lead weights, his wheels could probably have run continuously, assuming no malfunctions, for tens of thousands of years before there was a significant reduction in the masses of their lead weights. That's good enough for me.
When we finally obtain such a gravity wheel, I fully expect its existence to lead to another law of motion, but not another law of thermodynamics.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: The weighty influence of Newton
I prefer Novak's definition of energy ( http://nov55.com/ener.html where K.E. is mv not 1/2mv^2) and then use Newton's "laws". No "laws" need be broken then, just understood properly.... perhaps.
There's always that thread of doubt about these things, isn't there?
There's always that thread of doubt about these things, isn't there?
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Some reflections, ruminations and observations, opinionated and not . . .
With regard to all our propositions for Bessler-like devices, I believe that the first question we should ask ourselves should be:
FROM WHERE is the expected excess energy supposed to come?
Gravitational force, in and of itself, is not energy, nor can it be made so by any power deriving of mere human will. The occasionally proposed analogy that gravity force is like a water stream, or the wind, is in fact A BOGUS ONE! Unlike the case is with the latter two, there is no mass component to gravitas, as far as is known, therefor, there is no mass already in motion so as to impinge upon, or be caught by anything meant to capture it, to the purpose of being made to do useful work!
Weights, be they within or without our wheels, are all external to gravity, and are not in any way a part of it that is experienceable on our plane of existence, at least. Both air and water are comprised of molecules which posses the quality and quantity of MASS, and when in motion carry energy until dissipated or transferred as heat. Our wondrous gravity is wholly different from the two other supposed analogs.
So as to begin to seriously factor-in the suggested key question above, Behrendt's theory of mass conversion, or continuing diminution, makes the most sense, honestly, since for once it provides us with an answer to the question now grounded upon a reasonable proposition, and if accomplished within wheels rotating thereby, as such would violate no laws of Thermodynamics as long as some form of heat transference were involved which seems to be implicit in the idea, nor would it bruise in any way Newton's tripartite Law of Motion.
It seems to this writer, then, that the trick to accomplishing what Behrendt proposes might be to find that circumstance in which his rotating masses would continually lose THE MOST MASS per rotation. Could this require some peculiar motion of the weights occurring within to so-achieve, or even amplify the effect? Possibly. Or, might the golden key be found in the particular CHOICE of element or elements used, such that would result in the most robust version of the achieved Grand Result?
If Behrendt's theory were actually reduced to practice, and NO heat transfer were observed, then new exceptions or even additions would have to be made to the Thermodynamical Laws as they exist presently. Everything would continue to operate normally, just as they did before the happy new observations, but novel vistas would be FORCED OPEN and old ideas seriously modified whether pleasant or otherwise to hardened ideas.
None of us knows what was inside Bessler's devices, obviously, but we do know what was reportedly said by witnesses actually there, and by Bessler himself in the form of his writings, cryptic or not, as well as his recorded comments, accurate or not, BUT, so-far, all these clues have not added up to ANY TANGIBLE RESULTS whatever! Not the slightest scintilla of encouraging continuing motion has been observed, reported or verified, in our recent modern times.
In view of this I fairly ask: WHAT DISCOURAGEMENT cannot be drawn from this obvious and unpleasant fact? Do the sundried 'over balancing' schemes of centuries-long duration now, continue to promise us ANY hope of their suddenly bursting forth in some transcendant glory, outside of our dreams and most wishful imaginings, that is?
No, whatever one's definition for PM may be, whether tortured and teased to nothingness or not, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION to be first asked and then answered with regard to all so-called 'over balancing' wheel schemes, goes perpetually UNANSWERED, and understandably so . . . for the answer MUST be, and always WILL be: 'from nowhere' can it come.
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
"Swatting the hornets' nest; raising the wind."
With regard to all our propositions for Bessler-like devices, I believe that the first question we should ask ourselves should be:
FROM WHERE is the expected excess energy supposed to come?
Gravitational force, in and of itself, is not energy, nor can it be made so by any power deriving of mere human will. The occasionally proposed analogy that gravity force is like a water stream, or the wind, is in fact A BOGUS ONE! Unlike the case is with the latter two, there is no mass component to gravitas, as far as is known, therefor, there is no mass already in motion so as to impinge upon, or be caught by anything meant to capture it, to the purpose of being made to do useful work!
Weights, be they within or without our wheels, are all external to gravity, and are not in any way a part of it that is experienceable on our plane of existence, at least. Both air and water are comprised of molecules which posses the quality and quantity of MASS, and when in motion carry energy until dissipated or transferred as heat. Our wondrous gravity is wholly different from the two other supposed analogs.
So as to begin to seriously factor-in the suggested key question above, Behrendt's theory of mass conversion, or continuing diminution, makes the most sense, honestly, since for once it provides us with an answer to the question now grounded upon a reasonable proposition, and if accomplished within wheels rotating thereby, as such would violate no laws of Thermodynamics as long as some form of heat transference were involved which seems to be implicit in the idea, nor would it bruise in any way Newton's tripartite Law of Motion.
It seems to this writer, then, that the trick to accomplishing what Behrendt proposes might be to find that circumstance in which his rotating masses would continually lose THE MOST MASS per rotation. Could this require some peculiar motion of the weights occurring within to so-achieve, or even amplify the effect? Possibly. Or, might the golden key be found in the particular CHOICE of element or elements used, such that would result in the most robust version of the achieved Grand Result?
If Behrendt's theory were actually reduced to practice, and NO heat transfer were observed, then new exceptions or even additions would have to be made to the Thermodynamical Laws as they exist presently. Everything would continue to operate normally, just as they did before the happy new observations, but novel vistas would be FORCED OPEN and old ideas seriously modified whether pleasant or otherwise to hardened ideas.
None of us knows what was inside Bessler's devices, obviously, but we do know what was reportedly said by witnesses actually there, and by Bessler himself in the form of his writings, cryptic or not, as well as his recorded comments, accurate or not, BUT, so-far, all these clues have not added up to ANY TANGIBLE RESULTS whatever! Not the slightest scintilla of encouraging continuing motion has been observed, reported or verified, in our recent modern times.
In view of this I fairly ask: WHAT DISCOURAGEMENT cannot be drawn from this obvious and unpleasant fact? Do the sundried 'over balancing' schemes of centuries-long duration now, continue to promise us ANY hope of their suddenly bursting forth in some transcendant glory, outside of our dreams and most wishful imaginings, that is?
No, whatever one's definition for PM may be, whether tortured and teased to nothingness or not, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION to be first asked and then answered with regard to all so-called 'over balancing' wheel schemes, goes perpetually UNANSWERED, and understandably so . . . for the answer MUST be, and always WILL be: 'from nowhere' can it come.
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
"Swatting the hornets' nest; raising the wind."
Last edited by primemignonite on Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Yes .. imo, there is just a wee problem with Ken's theory of converting rest mass to usable energy etc.
Within a wheel environment weights that move must do so in two ways, vis-a-vis, laterally & vertically. This means they are accelerated then decelerated again, in any direction. Regardless of how you organize the movement the weights must by necessity end up at their original start out position (say 12 o'cl) which is a closed system where the accelerations & movements factor each other out exactly. Added to this that the whole earth upon which the wheel is standing is also moving & rotating thru space & well, you see the complexity increasing exponentially.
Radioactive materials lose mass over time (millennia) but scientists can measure & factor that & that's plausible & verifiable IINM. I just don't see how ordinary mass (any mass infact) loses energy (which then is tapped to work - how ?) by simple virtue that the mass is in cyclic motion & then doesn't recover it again as it goes around with the wheel. Added to that is Einstein's theory which says that mass increases with velocity (but in a wheel environment, miniscule & relative to whom or what ?).
Without verifiable experiments to prove this hypothesis & how it might be applied to PM wheel mechanics, it remains just a theory of no particular merit IMHO & should be seen for what it is, that is, an attempt to rationalize something unknown. If it were convincing or even credible it should be possible to show the hypothesis in action to power a PM wheel supplementing or superseding Newtonian physics ?! That, I haven't seen, yet.
Within a wheel environment weights that move must do so in two ways, vis-a-vis, laterally & vertically. This means they are accelerated then decelerated again, in any direction. Regardless of how you organize the movement the weights must by necessity end up at their original start out position (say 12 o'cl) which is a closed system where the accelerations & movements factor each other out exactly. Added to this that the whole earth upon which the wheel is standing is also moving & rotating thru space & well, you see the complexity increasing exponentially.
Radioactive materials lose mass over time (millennia) but scientists can measure & factor that & that's plausible & verifiable IINM. I just don't see how ordinary mass (any mass infact) loses energy (which then is tapped to work - how ?) by simple virtue that the mass is in cyclic motion & then doesn't recover it again as it goes around with the wheel. Added to that is Einstein's theory which says that mass increases with velocity (but in a wheel environment, miniscule & relative to whom or what ?).
Without verifiable experiments to prove this hypothesis & how it might be applied to PM wheel mechanics, it remains just a theory of no particular merit IMHO & should be seen for what it is, that is, an attempt to rationalize something unknown. If it were convincing or even credible it should be possible to show the hypothesis in action to power a PM wheel supplementing or superseding Newtonian physics ?! That, I haven't seen, yet.
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Fletcher,
Most interesting your comments.
I read years ago on his own site about this theory, and after having seen no apparent success with who knows how many "over balancing" efforts now failed, untested or not, it seemed and still seems somewhat substantive, and certainly novel. This, as compared to so much else that goes nowhere, seems to deserve attention and a little respect, or to me it does, at least.
Mother Nature seems to most scrupulously recover what may be taken from opposite sides of rotation, and at the same time, a bit more for good measure my means of endless frictional meanness; NO disrespect to Her being intended.
Honestly, if "overbalancing" WHERE to produce constant motion reciprocating, rotational or otherwise, then heat SOMEWHERE would have to be detected or there would be big trouble from (or for!) the physicists, no?
"The weighty influence of Newton", indeed, but let's do factor-in Mother Nature for all credit due her, as well. [STILL, she is cruel and contemptuous of our best 'good intentions'.]
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
Most interesting your comments.
I read years ago on his own site about this theory, and after having seen no apparent success with who knows how many "over balancing" efforts now failed, untested or not, it seemed and still seems somewhat substantive, and certainly novel. This, as compared to so much else that goes nowhere, seems to deserve attention and a little respect, or to me it does, at least.
Mother Nature seems to most scrupulously recover what may be taken from opposite sides of rotation, and at the same time, a bit more for good measure my means of endless frictional meanness; NO disrespect to Her being intended.
Honestly, if "overbalancing" WHERE to produce constant motion reciprocating, rotational or otherwise, then heat SOMEWHERE would have to be detected or there would be big trouble from (or for!) the physicists, no?
"The weighty influence of Newton", indeed, but let's do factor-in Mother Nature for all credit due her, as well. [STILL, she is cruel and contemptuous of our best 'good intentions'.]
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Newtwons three laws do not assume the "laws" of thermodynamics. I think Newtons laws are valid, and if you believe in PMM, you have to have issues with the laws of thermodynamics.
-Randall
-Randall
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Points made, and accepted as-is, Randall.
Fletcher, in light of what you wrote re: "Within a wheel environment weights . . . etc." which stands as being obviously true, then how might you account for the apparent fact that Bessler achieved what he did? This reality seems to rule out all 'over balancing' schemes ab initio, correct? This is the way I see it for the moment, at least.
Yes, 'closed' and 'conserved' without seeming exception.
All summed up, though, Bessler himself essentially credited imbalance for producing his wondrous effect, no?
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
Fletcher, in light of what you wrote re: "Within a wheel environment weights . . . etc." which stands as being obviously true, then how might you account for the apparent fact that Bessler achieved what he did? This reality seems to rule out all 'over balancing' schemes ab initio, correct? This is the way I see it for the moment, at least.
Yes, 'closed' and 'conserved' without seeming exception.
All summed up, though, Bessler himself essentially credited imbalance for producing his wondrous effect, no?
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
Last edited by primemignonite on Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: The weighty influence of Newton
James .. "prejudices are made to be broken" if we but only know where to look & can but hold a shred of objectivity because of it.
To answer your question, yes, I believe it was as he says, an OOB wheel. When my current build is complete I will have yet more grist & gristle for that particular mill.
To answer your question, yes, I believe it was as he says, an OOB wheel. When my current build is complete I will have yet more grist & gristle for that particular mill.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: The weighty influence of Newton
Fletcher wrote:
This is, indeed, a disturbing question. One can just say that the weights can not do this and, therefore, building an overbalancing gravity wheel is impossible as is the entire concept of a perpetual motion wheel.
On the other hand, it seems that Bessler did, in fact, build such a device and that it can be done.
The only way around this contradiction that I can propose is that there must be an additional law of motion that applies to overbalanced wheels! I call it "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" in honor of Bessler's achievement. I am not sure what form this new law will take, but I suspect that it apply to system wherein there are two separate centers of rotation present. That is, in a gravity wheel one would have the axle of the wheel as one center of rotation and the CG of the weights as the other center of rotation. Most likely, our current three laws of motion only can be applied to wheels in which the two centers coincide. When they do not coincide, as in a working gravity wheel, then the 4th law must be invoked.
Below is a sketch that might pertain to the formulation of the 4th law of motion.
ken
I agree with you that there is a "wee" problem with what I am suggesting. Mainly, it is that when a weight moves through a closed path in a gravity field, there is supposed to be no net change in the gravitational potential energy of the weight. If that is the case, then how can the motion of the weights, as they move around the axle of an overbalanced gravity wheel, supposed to allow that wheel to deliver continuous energy to perform "useful" work in its environment?Yes .. imo, there is just a wee problem with Ken's theory of converting rest mass to usable energy etc.
This is, indeed, a disturbing question. One can just say that the weights can not do this and, therefore, building an overbalancing gravity wheel is impossible as is the entire concept of a perpetual motion wheel.
On the other hand, it seems that Bessler did, in fact, build such a device and that it can be done.
The only way around this contradiction that I can propose is that there must be an additional law of motion that applies to overbalanced wheels! I call it "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" in honor of Bessler's achievement. I am not sure what form this new law will take, but I suspect that it apply to system wherein there are two separate centers of rotation present. That is, in a gravity wheel one would have the axle of the wheel as one center of rotation and the CG of the weights as the other center of rotation. Most likely, our current three laws of motion only can be applied to wheels in which the two centers coincide. When they do not coincide, as in a working gravity wheel, then the 4th law must be invoked.
Below is a sketch that might pertain to the formulation of the 4th law of motion.
ken
- Attachments
-
- These concepts might be used to formulate the 4th Law of Motion...
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: The weighty influence of Newton
I have always found myself in general agreement with you Ken on how an OBW might work i.e. the centres of rotation & CoG don't coincide.
Where we differ Ken is that I don't invoke the concept of an, as yet undiscovered, 4th Law of Motion (attributed to Bessler or not).
I believe the answer will be able to be adequately explained by current mechanical principles, Newton Laws of Motion & the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics. IMO Bessler found a skillful way to use all available learned knowledge to produce his wheels, that in turn did not contravene the basic tenets of Motion & Thermodynamics.
We won't know who is right until one is made but my money is on Occam's Razor applying.
Where we differ Ken is that I don't invoke the concept of an, as yet undiscovered, 4th Law of Motion (attributed to Bessler or not).
I believe the answer will be able to be adequately explained by current mechanical principles, Newton Laws of Motion & the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics. IMO Bessler found a skillful way to use all available learned knowledge to produce his wheels, that in turn did not contravene the basic tenets of Motion & Thermodynamics.
We won't know who is right until one is made but my money is on Occam's Razor applying.