There is no absolute frame of reference in reality. An absolute frame of reference being an unalterable frame, a state that will always remain the same and upon which everything else can be measured.
A state of potential exists as a measurement between two objects. You move past me at a velocity of 10 kilometers per second, but it can also be said that it is I that who is moving past you. That potential cannot be altered, used or added to etc. without affecting the state of both objects. Here is a small example. There is a lever, a fulcrum, and an object at one end that is going to be lifted by an object at the other end. Generally it is thought that the fulcrum and the earth it is anchored to is static, unbiased or an unalterable frame of reference. This of course is not true and the fulcrum/earth is having a change imposed upon it as well as the other two objects.
What a perpetual motion machine calls for is to have a unique situation apply to one direction or course of action, and for it not to apply to that direction/ course of actions opposite. Without an absolute frame of reference this is impossible.
Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Moderator: scott
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Yes this is true for a perpetual motion machine, but as I have always said, Bessler's machine was not a perpetual motion machine.
A perpetual motion may be defined as a machine which requires no external source of energy for it move continuously. Bessler's machine required the force of gravity to move, and was therefore not a perpetual motion machine, since the gravity source was external to the machine.
Gravity is all around us but it is discernable as a downward force upon all things and is therefore coming from up above and of course somewhere external to the machine in question.
John Collins
A perpetual motion may be defined as a machine which requires no external source of energy for it move continuously. Bessler's machine required the force of gravity to move, and was therefore not a perpetual motion machine, since the gravity source was external to the machine.
Gravity is all around us but it is discernable as a downward force upon all things and is therefore coming from up above and of course somewhere external to the machine in question.
John Collins
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
It sounds to me that you are now a non believer in the genuineness of Besslers wheels Michael. You have given up ?
In the nearly 300 years that have passed since J B demonstrated his wheels NOT ONE person has been able to duplicate his success and it's possible that no one ever will.
Taken at face value it IS impossible, yet those ancient eyewitness accounts and Besslers fervor for someone to buy his idea tell us that he really did somehow do it.
Many times I've said to myself "to hell with it, this is crazy" . But the Siren Song calls from the long past and then I get another brilliant idea.
Graham
In the nearly 300 years that have passed since J B demonstrated his wheels NOT ONE person has been able to duplicate his success and it's possible that no one ever will.
Taken at face value it IS impossible, yet those ancient eyewitness accounts and Besslers fervor for someone to buy his idea tell us that he really did somehow do it.
Many times I've said to myself "to hell with it, this is crazy" . But the Siren Song calls from the long past and then I get another brilliant idea.
Graham
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
John the answer you give doesn't evade the very real fact that the only way to create any kind of free energy device is by the method I gave.
Graham I've never been a believer in Bessler, only in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. The method I outlined is the only way to do it. Frankly I don't think it is possible, but I wish you all luck in your endeavors. The method I gave, thats where you want to focus your attention. It's the only "dragon" that needs to be defeated.
Graham I've never been a believer in Bessler, only in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. The method I outlined is the only way to do it. Frankly I don't think it is possible, but I wish you all luck in your endeavors. The method I gave, thats where you want to focus your attention. It's the only "dragon" that needs to be defeated.
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
You can stretch the discussion into as much text as required to make your point!
For me it is very simple: Have we found the answer to be impossible? NO! Have we found and substantiated that it is impossible? NO!
Do we have any credence in our favor? YES! (Bessler and the eye witness reports)
Is the answer worth pursuing? YES! Is there any religious scriptures that would lead one to believe it is possible? Yes! (Depending upon how you interpret them)
Michael, I do not know how old you are, but there is a good chance that I have been seeking and held my patience since before you were born. I retain my patience and march forward with new concepts rigorously. I have a purpose in life and as I grow older and my health fails, I work on the damn thing even harder!
Not an atheist nor a Bible thumper, but I feel there is a higher power pushing me onwards. It has taken me 50 years just to throw up my hands and admit that Bessler was correct when he said that an out of balance wheel is not the answer. I now pursue other avenues and scrutinize this forum thourghly. The innovation is boundless for the perceptive and or the discerning. I just wish I were more of such a person.
Fletcher does not realize it (or maybe he does) but he just dropped a bomb on my thinking cap today!
Ralph
For me it is very simple: Have we found the answer to be impossible? NO! Have we found and substantiated that it is impossible? NO!
Do we have any credence in our favor? YES! (Bessler and the eye witness reports)
Is the answer worth pursuing? YES! Is there any religious scriptures that would lead one to believe it is possible? Yes! (Depending upon how you interpret them)
Michael, I do not know how old you are, but there is a good chance that I have been seeking and held my patience since before you were born. I retain my patience and march forward with new concepts rigorously. I have a purpose in life and as I grow older and my health fails, I work on the damn thing even harder!
Not an atheist nor a Bible thumper, but I feel there is a higher power pushing me onwards. It has taken me 50 years just to throw up my hands and admit that Bessler was correct when he said that an out of balance wheel is not the answer. I now pursue other avenues and scrutinize this forum thourghly. The innovation is boundless for the perceptive and or the discerning. I just wish I were more of such a person.
Fletcher does not realize it (or maybe he does) but he just dropped a bomb on my thinking cap today!
Ralph
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Ralph I just don't see any constructive relevence in arguing personal belief, age, patience, etc.
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Michael,
Here we go again! Who said anything about arguing. IMO if you cannot approach this forum with a little social etiquette, then why bother!
Ralph
Here we go again! Who said anything about arguing. IMO if you cannot approach this forum with a little social etiquette, then why bother!
Ralph
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Oh .. I realize it Ralph [I read your comments on the "weights" thread along with the others].
Personally, I'm glad that the focus of investigation seems to be gathering pace in other directions from that of strictly OOB wheel designs.
The more people we can have thinking about these other areas [& why] the better imo.
And you were right, I had gone from CF pump to CF pump energizing an Inertial Impeller, but still a viable mech eludes me. It does feel the right stone to look under though.
Personally, I'm glad that the focus of investigation seems to be gathering pace in other directions from that of strictly OOB wheel designs.
The more people we can have thinking about these other areas [& why] the better imo.
And you were right, I had gone from CF pump to CF pump energizing an Inertial Impeller, but still a viable mech eludes me. It does feel the right stone to look under though.
Re: re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Michael, Sounds like Ralph and you are coming at each other from different levels of intelligence, perception and education!rlortie wrote:Michael,
Here we go again! Who said anything about arguing. IMO if you cannot approach this forum with a little social etiquette, then why bother!
Ralph
Mik
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Fletcher,
I cannot think of a better way to build CF than a CF pumping action. But it need not pump liquid. I have not had a chance to get back to the shop for some time now. But when I do, I have an idea that may just prove worth a littler experimentation with. I would not think of it if it were not for a good flywheel. and I am sure it is a stone unturned as I have never seen anything like it. Your phrase "inertial impeller" fits it to a "T".
I hope you do not mind me using the phrase in the future if it shows promise.
Ralph
Yes I am doing my best to get away from OOB wheel designs. It is still round but I like to think of it as a drum containing a mechanism.And you were right, I had gone from CF pump to CF pump energizing an Inertial Impeller, but still a viable mech eludes me. It does feel the right stone to look under though.
I cannot think of a better way to build CF than a CF pumping action. But it need not pump liquid. I have not had a chance to get back to the shop for some time now. But when I do, I have an idea that may just prove worth a littler experimentation with. I would not think of it if it were not for a good flywheel. and I am sure it is a stone unturned as I have never seen anything like it. Your phrase "inertial impeller" fits it to a "T".
I hope you do not mind me using the phrase in the future if it shows promise.
Ralph
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
I'd appreciate replys to stick to the subject at hand please.
If not Scott please close this thread down.
If not Scott please close this thread down.
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Mik,
I said what I wanted to say in the first six lines of my post. This I thought was a responsible reply to Michael's statement. The rest of the post was just idle chit chat meant to be taken in a social sense. If you are not interested, then simply do not read it.
Unfortunately Michael doe not seem to see it that way. It has happened before. In the past Michael and I built what I thought was a confidential trust with one another. I still see it that way.
Ralph
I said what I wanted to say in the first six lines of my post. This I thought was a responsible reply to Michael's statement. The rest of the post was just idle chit chat meant to be taken in a social sense. If you are not interested, then simply do not read it.
Unfortunately Michael doe not seem to see it that way. It has happened before. In the past Michael and I built what I thought was a confidential trust with one another. I still see it that way.
Ralph
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Michael, I tend to agree with you.
IMO, the quest for perpetual motion, in the form of the classic purely mechanical overbalanced gravity wheel, is clearly futile. Bessler said as much himself and his MT seems all about making this point.
I might go one step further and suggest that any purely mechanical process that might attempt to extract energy solely from gravity OR inertia is doomed to fail. IMO, those who think otherwise have a poor understanding of energy. Sorry if that sounds harsh to anyone.
That being said, I certainly do think Bessler discovered a valid 18th C embodiment of 'true perpetual motion' - as defined and at that time.
Surely this is just another mystery waiting to be solved with a functional demonstration by any means possible. However, in this particular case, 'by any means possible' must include the relatively limited standards and measurements of an 18th C knowledge base and all the opportunities that may have been presented to a clever multi-skilled innovator intent on lifting himself to a higher social status.
In short, I think Bessler identified and cleverly applied a real energy source to lift his weights and drive his wheel, one that would have complied with the accepted definition of PM within the limitations of 18th C measurement, ie: no detectable input of energy. A sweet technicality if he could secure a sale, and a sale was what it was all about!
IMO, the quest for perpetual motion, in the form of the classic purely mechanical overbalanced gravity wheel, is clearly futile. Bessler said as much himself and his MT seems all about making this point.
I might go one step further and suggest that any purely mechanical process that might attempt to extract energy solely from gravity OR inertia is doomed to fail. IMO, those who think otherwise have a poor understanding of energy. Sorry if that sounds harsh to anyone.
That being said, I certainly do think Bessler discovered a valid 18th C embodiment of 'true perpetual motion' - as defined and at that time.
Surely this is just another mystery waiting to be solved with a functional demonstration by any means possible. However, in this particular case, 'by any means possible' must include the relatively limited standards and measurements of an 18th C knowledge base and all the opportunities that may have been presented to a clever multi-skilled innovator intent on lifting himself to a higher social status.
In short, I think Bessler identified and cleverly applied a real energy source to lift his weights and drive his wheel, one that would have complied with the accepted definition of PM within the limitations of 18th C measurement, ie: no detectable input of energy. A sweet technicality if he could secure a sale, and a sale was what it was all about!
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
Bill wrote:I might go one step further and suggest that any purely mechanical process that might attempt to extract energy solely from gravity OR inertia is doomed to fail. IMO, those who think otherwise have a poor understanding of energy. Sorry if that sounds harsh to anyone.
No, not to harsh Bill. Simply the inescapable truth until someone can duplicate Bessler's wheel performances, one way or another, as you point out. Then it's modus operandi will be entered into the history & physics books either as new understanding or a smart way of using environmental forces. I'm comfortable with either, the point is to discover it & replicate his wheel feats.
I thought it might be worth posting Mr Tim's thread about Drebbel's PM device of 1612. It certainly would be a good contender if scaled up significantly i.e. an internal cylinder. For those who don't know it works using diurnal ambient temperature changes acting on a spherical expansion/contraction chamber which pressurizes an open ended water tube to cause imbalance.
If that were 'ratcheted' it could wind something for slow release & would fit your description of a more 'looser/wider' definition of PM circa 18th C.
Posted: Sat 31 Mar, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: PM found in 1612
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.santa-coloma.net/drebbel/drebbel.html
In terms of Michael's comments about reference frames not being immutable/absolute, he is of course correct, & so it is a great dilemma if that is where you choose to look.
- Attachments
-
- Drebbel's PM device of 1612
re: Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.
IMO I don't think this is true. First let me state that with objects moving in straight line what you say IS true. But I think that when you have objects moving in a circle then they exhibit CF in an absolute unalterable frame of reference! Think about it a little. Suppose you are given the engineering task of designing a black box for a starship. The back box is to be a backup system to the normal navigation system. As such it must sense the exact speed and direction that the starship is traveling in absolute space. Can it be done? I say yes. The black box would spin weights. I think any movement of the black box relative to absolute space would be detectable by the spinning gyro weights inside.Michael wrote:There is no absolute frame of reference in reality. An absolute frame of reference being an unalterable frame, a state that will always remain the same and upon which everything else can be measured.
Think of it this way. Suppose the starship is traveling in a straight line. As the weight moves toward the direction of travel it will have a difference curve than when it is traveling against the direction of travel. The CF on the weight will vary depending on the movement of the starship. The CF must be measured very accurately during a full circle rotation of a spinning gyro weight. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think it could be done.
As far as I know CF is always relative to absolute fixed space. Or am I wrong?
