Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.

[bluesgtr44]

Hmmm...Michael, might you be implying that all reference points in this are man made? We created the science of "reference point" and in reality...that doesn't make a true reference point.


Steve

[wikiwheel]

So if it is not possible for a wheel to always be heavy on one side, then what caused besslers wheel to work was a force generated by the movement alone of the weights inside.
This would mean then that bebblers first wheels, while "self starting", could not have started by themselves without first being cocked in a starting position before being let go.

Collection of Principles:

1. Was not out of balance.

2.Was cocked in a starting position.

4.

5...........

mik

[Michael]

Okay I'll see if I can respond to some of this.


There are items that I need to separate here. First absolute space needs to be defined. Where is it? You could name a possible static point and call it absolute space and say that everything else is moving around it, but if that point is named on the earth that point certainly isn't in absolute rest relative to other points outside of the earth. You can imagine there is an absolute universal point, somewhere out there but just where is it and on what grounds would you go to prove it? The only way to do that would be to find the center of the universe and show that everything rotates around it, and that it was unalterable. There are black holes but one black hole isn't the authority over another. Mainstream science holds that there is no center of the universe. Debatable? If you can prove that there is you would change everything in current science.
Newton believed in an absolute time, yes. He based it on his belief of the divine. Absolute time of course means absolute space. Relativity says no. Scientists show proof by example that gravity pulls space with a planets orbit from data of mercury and other data that shows the lensing effect. They also show it by time slowing down or accelerating based on one objects velocity compared to another.

A gyroscope is relative to the fixed point it spins around on. That point isn't universally fixed/ absolute, it is only fixed relative to the gyroscopes spin. If you accelerate the gyroscope as a whole, not its spin relative to "its" fixed point, but the whole gyroscope, then you get the situation you theorize here.

Two objects moving on curves with different absolute space radii produces CF that is not symetrical. I see no reason why we cannot harness the non-symetrical CF difference between two weights forced to move in non-symetrical paths on a rotating wheel.

But cf is only a relationship of a spinning mass to it's fixed point. Cf has a value of force, but ( this might seem ironic ) it also has a value of zero, just like its fixed point. In other words, both stay the same relative to each other. In your example that difference you cite is not a difference relative to it's fixed point, it is a difference relative to other points where a measurment is made between this other point and a point on the spinning mass and it is said that the gyroscope as a whole is accelerating.
As soon as a measurment is made force is tapped and a change will occur with the spinning mass.

If they do, then firing a laser from earth & reflecting it back by mirror sets ad infinitum would cause the earth & the moon to separate over time or at least change their angular momentums.

If the force of this is greater than all the other forces - over time, that are responsible for the current situation.

Steve it's not that reference points are man made ( if I'm following you correctly ). Reference points are real, it's that there is no universal "Rock" exists.

[Wheeler]

Hi Michael
Great topic.
What if the sun is the cause of gravity as I believe and it is a possible static point?
If the sun is the static point for our solar system, could it be possible that we have what we need for this solar system?

The rest of universe may not posess a point. Can you see my point?

[jim_mich]

Michael, you missed the whole point I've been trying to make. When an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"? This is what Newton's bucket experiment was all about. There seems to be some background absolute space and time 'system' that determines CF.

See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ucket.html

If we imagine only two rocks tied together by a rope and given a spin in empty space then it's possible to measure the tension on the ropes and determine their velocity, without ANY REFERENCE to other objects. And with a little more complex measurements you can determine if they are moving through absolute space. So what is this absolute space that they are moving relative to? It cannot be other objects and planets because those might also be moving. It is not a "point."

Yes, CF is measured relative to another point. But the CF value is relative to the weights movement through absolute space and not its movement relative to other objects.

Getting a little more complex...
I contend that it is the background Ether Energy (so named because of a lack of a better name) that determines/produces CF. This Ether Energy is the building material for all matter and forces. When an object spins it is constantly changing direction of movement within this Ether Energy. Matter is simply standing wave patterns within the Ether Energy matrix. CF is the manifestation of a constant change of direction (rotation) within this background Ether Energy matrix. So CF is always relative the Ether Energy matrix. This Ether Energy matrix itself can be caused to shift and move. We see this in the form of certain frequency imbalances (magnetic, light and gravity) that produce forces. And I contend that we can manipulate the forces involved with CF (inertia) so as to provide a continuous unbalance of those forces against the background Ether Energy. These unbalanced inertial forces can move weights. Then the OOB weights can move the wheel.

What is it that pushes back when we try to accelerate an object? It is the Ether Energy that resists our change of object speed. In order to accelerate an object we must change its standing wave speed movement through the Ether Energy. When we double an objects speed then the Ether Energy kinetic motion energy gets squared. This is the non-linear force what we must tap into!

[Michael]

Michael, you missed the whole point I've been trying to make. When an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"?

To its fixed central point. It's fixed point is not a universal absolute. It is not absolute space because that point is not unalterable.

If we imagine only two rocks tied together by a rope and given a spin in empty space then it's possible to measure the tension on the ropes and determine their velocity, without ANY REFERENCE to other objects.

When you measure their velocity and you don't use any other reference point, you are doing it by their fixed central point. And you do need some type of measuring device so you are using another reference point. When you measure either tension or velocity a change occurs, which is relative to all in measuring reference. If it is not in measuring reference it is irrelevent. You could measure tension just between the two rocks and an in between measuring device and then a change would only occur between them and not the central point but then your not utilising the central point as an absolute to create the model mentioned. If you used the central point as a reference point for measurement then a change occurs to it as well.

And with a little more complex measurements you can determine if they are moving through absolute space.

You cannot measure a uniform velocity Jim without an outside reference point, and you can measure the motion of a gyroscope in the vacuum of space ( in addition to its spin ) but not a uniform velocity, only an an acceleration, and you can still only do this in reference to a point that is in addition to the gyroscope. Either to the structure that the central point is fastened to or some other point and a change occurs relative to both when you do. If you base the measurements only on changes occuring to the gyroscope and structure that houses it, and not to some point outside of it, it is based on "history" of the structure, in reference to a state it was in before the change and not to some absolute.

[jim_mich]

Michael, you seem to be speaking of apples while I speak of oranges, since I'm having a very difficult time understanding what you're trying to say. So let's back up and take things slowly one point at a time, ok?

First point. When an object spins then it must have another object interconnected to balance the pull of the spinning. The pull of spinning depends on three things. Mass of the spinning objects. Radius between the spinning objects. And the rotational speed of the spinning objects. My question and point is when an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"? A point does not supply enough information to determine rotational speed! So again I ask what does any object spin "relative to?" Don't tell me that it is necessary to alter the speed in order to measure it since simple optical methods can be used. Measuring tension can be done with almost no movement between two objects. A few microns of movement are all that is required.

Last point. You say that you cannot measure uniform velocity without an outside reference point. This is where we disagree. When dealing with spinning weights there develops an absolute space that gets defined by the center location of CF. The CF of a spinning object will always point to the center of rotation in absolute space. This can be used as a reference point to measure uniform velocity through absolute space. If you spin a weight attached to the said object traveling at a uniform velocity then the CF will vary. It will be stronger in one direction than in another direction. This is because a spinning weight will not be moving in a true circle. It will trace ellipses through absolute space. The ellipses will vary in radius and absolute speed of the object. This will cause a variation in CF between any two objects that are spinning and traveling along the said uniform velocity path. It is absolute space that will determine the strength and direction of CF at any given point in time. From this it can be determined how fast and what direction the objects are moving relative to absolute space. Of course there will be interaction between the moving uniform velocity object and the spinning weight. But this still does not deny the fact that the CF will define the momentary center point in absolute space around which an object is spinning. This is the logic of Newton's bucket experiment.

[Vic Hays]

Michael, you missed the whole point I've been trying to make. When an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"?

To its fixed central point. It's fixed point is not a universal absolute. It is not absolute space because that point is not unalterable.

To make it simple, suppose the universe was completely empty.

When the object spins how can you tell it is spinning? In relationship to what? There is no fixed central point. It has no fixed point at all.

There is no CF without space.

[jim_mich]

There is no CF without space.

Of course this will never happen. If you have an object then you have space. And what is it that defines space? If an object is spinning, then it must be spinning relative to something else. That something else requires a location and a velocity, just the same as an object moving in a straight line requires a reference object and a velocity relative to the reference point. A spinning object defines its own reference point in fixed space. That reference point is the center of rotation of the object. The direction of CF points to the center. The velocity is relative to the intensity of the CF and therefore defines the distance from the center. This center point is located in fixed space without the need for a second object from which measurements need to be taken. In order to measure and locate the center point you need to take measurements and the taking of measurements may change the locations of the objects. But the fact is that the center point location and the velocity around the center point are determined by some unseen background fixed space physical law.

This goes back to my black box suggestion. How do you determine the speed and direction from inside a sealed moving black box? The very act of the box moving through fixed space will change the CF exhibited by spinning weights within the black box. By measuring the direction and intensity of CF multiple times (or from multiple spinning weights) it can be determined the speed, direction and velocity that the black box is moving relative to fixed space. The question then becomes what is fixed space relative to? Einstein was a student of Mach. Since Einstein was trying to define space without aether he needed to define what fixed space should be relative to. He defined fixed space relative to the objects within fixed space rather than the other way around. This then leads to the need to define gravity as warping of space. Sure, the equations can be made to work. But the fact remains that the CF of a spinning object always points to a fixed location relative to the objects movement though some unseen fixed background matrix. It is this background matrix that defines fixed space and defines the absolute velocity of all objects moving though the matrix.

The speed and direction of any object moving through the fixed background matrix of space can be determined by measuring the intensity and direction of inertial forces (CF) upon spinning objects while they match the speed and direction of the moving object in question. The moving object in question need not be altered in any way.

If there is no background matrix then the question becomes... When an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"? What determines the direction of CF as the object spins? What determines the intensity of the CF as the object spins? If the universe were to consist of only the black box then would the whole universe shift and move with the black box as the weights inside change speeds and shift and move? If the black box were to accelerate would the background matrix also accelerate with it? This is the scene painted by Mach and Einstein when they define fixed space as being relative to the objects in space rather than as being a fixed background matrix that contains objects.

The existence of CF proves a fixed background matrix exists. A fixed background matrix requires some form of background Aether from which moving object determine there movement. Mankind made a fatal error in judgment by accepting Michelson's interpretation of the Michelson–Morley experiment that there is no aether. Their experiment only proved that the aether was not as they expected it to be; it did not prove that there is no aether.

CF is a form of momentum. Momentum requires a carrier mode; that is something to carry the added energy associated with the movement of the object. If movement of objects is defined only relative to other objects then the energy that is carried by the objects becomes variable depending only on which objects the movement is relating to. This then contradicts the conservation of energy law. In order for the conservation of energy law to be valid all objects’s motion must be measured relative to a fixed background matrix. Without a fixed background matrix CF will skew the results. Only when all movement is calculated relative the fixed background matrix that CF determines will the conservation of energy law stay valid.

In order for energy formulas to work correctly and produce real world answers, the kinetic energy of a moving object increases as the square of the speed. This produced a seldom talked about affect. It makes the kinetic energy contained within moving objects to be unbalanced; that is they don't follow the conservation of energy law. When the individual objects accelerate and decelerate then they maintain conservation of energy. But if you look at the quantity of kinetic energy within objects moving at differing speeds then conservation of energy is not maintained. The question then becomes were does this extra energy come from and return to as objects speed up and slow down? I say it comes from the background matrix. If that be the case then the background matrix contains energy. If we can tap into this difference in kinetic energy of objects moving at differing speeds relative to the background matrix then we will be tapping into the energy of the background matrix.

The only way to access this difference in kinetic energy is to change the speeds of the objects in some manner. CF is a direct reflection of the kinetic energy inside objects. When two moving objects change speeds equally but in opposite directions then the total change in energy conforms to conservation of energy. But the individual change in energy of the two objects does not balance. One object will produce more CF than the other object loses. If we pit the CF of the one object against the CF of the other object then we have a force imbalance. All engines work on force imbalances and it is a simple matter to use this CF imbalance to drive a wheel. We then have an engine that taps into the background matrix and extracts usable energy perpetually.

This and Bessler's history are the basis of my belief that Perpetual Motion machines may be possible.

I must appologize for the length of this post. It took me almost 3 hours to write and I probably lost most of you way back near the beginning.

[rlortie]

Jim,

No need for an apology on my part! This thread lost me after my initial post.

The title of this thread states where Michael stands. Why bother arguing when neither can substantiate the pros and cons on a key board!

I am surprised to see you putting in so much time on this issue, rather than being in the shop.

When I stand in front of my test stand and look at a design, I am the reference point! That is good enough for me. The weight positions is in reference to the wheel which hopefully is moving. If the weights are in a counter motion in reference to the wheel, then they are traveling upward at twice the speed.

Simply can not see what relevance there is in spending so much time composing text about CF and inertia in space. The moon orbits the earth and Jupiter, Mars and Saturn join in. The universe is everything, but yet it is said to be expanding. So why waste time looking for a reference as to what it is expanding into, if it is nothing?

Just my opinion!

Ralph

[John Collins]

When I stand in front of my test stand and look at a design, I am the reference point!

Excellent point Ralph!

And Jim-Mich your words, " And what is it that defines space? If an object is spinning, then it must be spinning relative to something else." reminds me of Zen Buddhism, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?" If an object is spinning in space, isn't the reference point you, if you see it? If you're not there is there a reference point?

John Collins

[Fletcher]

Good for you Jim [& Michael for that matter]. Each one of us has a need to understand the physical world as best we can, especially to rationalize how Bessler may or may not have provided his motive force for his wheels.

Bill's hypothesis of using environmental energy is the most rational/safe explanation by far, unless a better understanding comes along, which you are attempting to do Jim & John, & good for you for attempting that.

I can read a balance sheet but I don't need to be an accountant to do that in the same way that I can accept a local frame of reference here on earth without completely explaining what gravity & inertia is [though I'd like to know definitively out of curiosity].

The only real question mark I have about where you are going Jim is with the Conservation of Energy Laws [don't we all]. Perhaps this is not the right thread to discuss it but we've come this far so I'll briefly say my piece.

Inertia gives rise to Centripetal force. A rotating object has CP forces. If we let a rotating object change radius we create Centrifugal Force which looks like it could be tapped, on the surface of it. Alternatively we could let an object such as a pendulum fall in an arc & it also would generate CP force.

But ... a force is the ability to push or pull something ... the work it can do is that force applied over a time interval so it seems to be a zero sum game. I realize that your hypothesis contends that it is possible to create a useable differential. For the record - I hope you are correct.

The reason I doubt [at this time] that it can be achieved is once again back to Inertia. Simply put ... I = m r^2. What this means to me is that we can create CF pumps/pistons by changing radius, we can create Inertial hammers by also using the change in radius BUT each time we do the Inertial dampening is increased by the square of the radius, "absorbing the energy" to use your words, & that translates to slower swing or rotate velocity vis a vis less Energy. It would appear that Conservation of Momentum/Energy Laws remain intact - unless you find that loop hole.

This took about 30 minutes to write but from a life time of trying to understand so I expect it will take me a bit longer to understand your hypothesis & the part Aether has to play ;)

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

Having a little problem with this "Down to earth" description;

Inertia gives rise to Centripetal force. A rotating object has CP forces. If we let a rotating object change radius we create Centrifugal Force which looks like it could be tapped, on the surface of it. Alternatively we could let an object such as a pendulum fall in an arc & it also would generate CP force.

Inertia only gives rise to Centripetal force when it is in a curvilinear motion ( as you so state) that is directed toward the center of curvature or axis of rotation.

Centrifugal force cannot be acquired without Centripetal force as it can only be observed by that body or inertial mass in a curvature motion. and is directed away from the center of curvature and or axis.

My opinion is: if you have one you have the other and you need not change the radius, in doing so you loose one or the other by changing inertial force (angular momentum) in the process. Lengthening or shortening the curvature does vary the Centrifugal force with velocity. But it is of no value as long as it is directed toward the axis.

For CF to be of value as an energy source, your must move its directed motion away from the axis so that it is pulling on your machine somewhere other than dead center of the axle. I believe Bessler called it a right angle

Yes a falling pendulum creates centripetal force, it is that physical rod that is retaining the bob in a set curvilinear motion. Which takes you right back to the pivot point.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Sorry Ralph for the delay in replying. I was unable to get on the board for some reason, till now.

My opinion is: if you have one you have the other [CP & CF - italics mine] and you need not change the radius, in doing so you loose one or the other by changing inertial force (angular momentum) in the process.

Yep .. Angular Momentum changes if you change radius but Energy is conserved. For work to be done something has to move so the force identified can be applied to push or pull something. Else you are left with Kinetic Energy form Velocity alone.

Lengthening or shortening the curvature does vary the Centrifugal force with velocity. But it is of no value as long as it is directed toward the axis.

Yep .. one end of the connecting rod is attached to a pivot & this is the center of rotation. It is of no value unless something can move so the force can be applied to something else.

For CF to be of value as an energy source, your must move its directed motion away from the axis so that it is pulling on your machine somewhere other than dead center of the axle. I believe Bessler called it a right angle.

This is easier said than done. As soon as you attempt to redirect the force somewhere else, via moving its own pivot [to change the center of rotation] or pushing something else, you either loose energy by reduction in momentum of the rotation or by the resultant change of the real radius & CoAM rules again. JMO's.

Nevertheless, only by exploring these possibilities can we each rule things Out OR In.

[Michael]

First the original point of this thread. The only way to make a free energy machine would be to make use of an absolute frame of reference ( in a form, structure, etc. appropriate to the machine ) in addition to the rest of the machine. An absolute frame of reference is one that is unchangeable. One that can have force directed at it and it won’t undergo a change, so it can be used as a metaphorical springboard to create a unique situation that applies to one direction or course of action without a reverse of values also holding true to the opposite direction, course of action. Since an absolute frame of reference is unalterable it would be the great authority of the universe, one on which everything else is measured. If this absolute frame of reference were found in nature then all we would need to do is fashion our absolute frame of reference on it.
Newton believed it existed as absolute time. Absolute time also means absolute space. He did demonstrations showing where and how he thought it was ( inertia experiments ) . It answered for him how gravity could operate in a vacuum. It fit in his ideas of the divine and he based a lot of his alchemy work ( where more time was spent that anything else ) mapping out the divine plan; when and where prophesied events would occur. If there is an absolute time and absolute space that exists as a background super structure then it is unalterable and then there would also be an absolute or ultimate time line where events are destined to be and occur no matter what.
That’s some of the history.

Modern science/relativity shows this to be wrong. It is still believes that there is a background superstructure, call it what you will, the fabric of space time/ the quantum field etc. but it doesn’t hold that it is absolute or unalterable, nor is it one giant uniform field. Regions of it are subject to change, just as everything else in it is subject to the rules of change. There have been a lot of experiments done to show this is the case. Mercury's orbit, gravitational lensing of other star systems, all show a fabric but that the fabric is being distorted or pulled with planetary orbit. It is not unalterable. Experiments with time as well show that time is relevant to velocity, and it is not an absolute reference frame. Time slows or speeds up depending on the velocity relative to outside observations. The fabric of space time is not a fixed quality or quantity it changes and its change is relative to the observer and what is being observed.

So if there is no absolute space time reference frame what about the two rocks tethered by a rope experiment? If you put your awareness on one of the rocks and looked at the rope and the rock at the other end they wouldn’t be moving relative to you at all. Everything else outside of this situation would appear to be moving though. But wait...if it’s all relative and it could be said that the outside universe is rotating around the rocks then why do I feel a pull like I want to go flying off the rock? That proves that it is the rocks that are moving and not the universe around it, and since that pull can be felt regardless whether there are other objects which can act as stations for measurement/observation around the spinning rocks or not, that proves the spin is being referenced to an unalterable absolute space time fabric, right?
What it shows is those rocks are undergoing an acceleration. An acceleration is any change either towards positive or negative values in either velocity or direction. You might think, well that change is being referenced to the absoluteness of space time. Occam’s razor though would say that the constituent parts that make the rock, the molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, are being forced to change relative to each other. Some are feeling a force of compression, some are feeling a force of expansion. Depends on relative placement. Either or requires a force to maintain compression and expansion. In this example it’s CP. The central place of CP is not an absolute either, because it can change. It is not a place of absolute space time, it can be accelerated.
Your awareness on the rock is part of that situation as well. As you follow the curve, you bend towards compression. That curve you are following is not an absolute either, so you resist it. Unless you have a force keeping you pushed to following the curve you fly off it.

First point. When an object spins then it must have another object interconnected to balance the pull of the spinning. The pull of spinning depends on three things. Mass of the spinning objects. Radius between the spinning objects. And the rotational speed of the spinning objects.

Agree .

My question and point is when an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"?

It spins relative to the place of the observer. What happens to and on the rocks themselves in reference to the situation I hope I answered.

Don't tell me that it is necessary to alter the speed in order to measure it since simple optical methods can be used. Measuring tension can be done with almost no movement between two objects. A few microns of movement are all that is required.

It doesn't matter how small the movement is a change will always occur and that change is relative to observer and observed. Always. Nothing is absolute. Even with optical systems. Light is required to take an optical measurement. That light will alter the point of observation since light is an energetic force, and it will also alter the observer.

Last point. You say that you cannot measure uniform velocity without an outside reference point.

Right.

If you spin a weight attached to the said object traveling at a uniform velocity then the CF will vary. It will be stronger in one direction than in another direction.

If that were true then you could easily prove it by spinning a gyroscope here on the earth and taking micron measurements at various locations on the curve of the spinning mass, relative to the station holding the gyroscope. Since the earth is in motion it would show a force greater in one direction that the other. It should show a difference but that difference is due to the earths acceleration ( following a curve ) and not it's uniform velocity. The rate of acceleration change can be calculated though and taken off the the gyroscopic measurements, or you could just send the gyroscope on a uniform linear velocity. In both these cases then there won't be any measurement differences on the spinning mass. You can only measure acceleration. you can only measure uniform velocity with a relative observation point, where ever it is.



I only had read Jim's first post at this posting.