Is Force different from Energy ?

[Deven]

The way I understood it is that the half is to get the average velocity. I think the whole "half mass" thing is just a misconception.

So, say you apply a force of 1m/s for 20 seconds. After 1 second, its traveling 1m/s, after 2 its traveling 2m/s, after 3, its 3m/s and so on. In the beginning the object is traveling slow, at the end it is traveling fast, and to find the average velocity from the reference point you simply need to divide by 2 or times by .5 at the final velocity.

This of course assumes constant velocity. But, it does give you a good idea of the reasons behind why it is 1/2.

I think in actuality it is just an equation to simplify the end means. If something has x kinetic energy, it would have taken m traveling at average velocity squared to get there. How it got there isn't really important.

I hope you can follow what I'm saying! The mathematical part of my brain works much better than the linguistic part. :)

[Deven]

Anyway!

To answer the question;

Force is simply applied energy. Call it torque, call it acceleration, call it deceleration, call it friction, it doesn't really matter!

Energy is simply the amount of force something can do. It doesn't need to be doing that work at that moment, but it is capable of it.

So yes, in essence, force and energy are one and the same, just in different contexts. You can think of force as the release of energy from one object to another.



To go further, I honestly do not think impact is the way to go in PMM, nor, for that matter, gravity. The kinetic energy is always equal to what you put in.

The illusion is that KE doubles with velocity, but to gain that velocity the input KE needs to double also. The only way to get around this is to have an infinite mass reference point that is always connected to and moving with the mover. Take a rocket for example; It gains its thrust from pushing from the air around it or its own exhaust behind it. However, as it travels faster, the air behind it travels faster in the opposite direction (relative to the rocket) so it is going to take more and more energy in order to push the rocket off the molecules going in the opposite direction of the rocket.

I'll use gravity as another example;

mgh = E = .5mv(squared)

(mass x gravity x height = .5 x mass x velocity squared)

From this equation you can always find the velocity at any point in the gravitational field by the amount of energy you put into it.

The mass cancels itself out in the above equation, but we'll use it to prove the point.

You take an object weighing 10kg, you lift it 10m. The PE of this is 10 x 9.8 x 10 = 980.

So now, we know that 980 = .5 x 10 x v(squared)

Get rid of the .5

1960 = 10v(squared)

Get rid of the mass

196 = v(squared)

Get rid of the square

(square root of) 196 = v

v= 14 m/s

This means that the velocity in the gravitational field is always equal to the energy needed to move against it. Gravity simply applies its force constantly, the acceleration in the field is due to this fact. It might take you 10 minutes to lift that 10kg object 10m, but you still spent 980 j to get it there. Gravity might bring it there in less than a second, but it put 980 j back into it.

This is why I believe that Bessler didn't use gravity as the energy source. I think he simply used the field to store energy to get the weights or whatever to swing when he wanted them to. Perhaps it is possible to never let gravity find equilibrium, but I'm not sure on that one, so don't take this to mean that gravity powered PMM is impossible, its just not going to be from impact because of velocity squared.

[Fletcher]

Pisstt - keep talking about no way forward with Impacts & you're going to upset some fella's with big hats. Some people are investing a lot of effort in breaking the apparent equivalence you mentioned, but it's always good to hear again the counter-argument upholding conservation of energy.

[Michael]

I mostly agree with you Deven, which is why I brought up the point of swinging weights and what it really means. Did he mean there was a real overall energy gain ( potential and kinetic ) or was he mearly being tricky and stating there was the normal gain in force by gravity acceleration, and that this was possibly that this was used for something but of course wasn't the secret? There is one and only one way to make a perpetual motion machine and thats to take the velocity of a mass and to spring it forward without there being any or little backforce. Then take that gained energy, use it to reset the source of the spring from a frame of reference that is still relative to the moving mass, and then overall the velocity of the mass will still be greater than what it was to begin with.

Now...if there only was a way to do this...

[Bessler007]

Deven,

You're way too hard on yourself. I enjoyed your concise description.

I hope you can follow what I'm saying! The mathematical part of my brain works much better than the linguistic part. :)

It is illogical to think Bessler thought in terms that didn't exist when he did.

Johann Ernst Elias Bessler (1680 - November 30, died1745) was born in Zittau, Germany.

kinetic
1864, from Gk. kinetikos "moving, putting in motion," from kinetos "moved," verbal adj. of kinein "to move."

Willful ignorance is impossible. It immediately becomes stupidity.

[Michael]

Deven what's illogical is to think you need terminology to understand a truth. Bessler could very easily have discovered that mass a moving at twice the speed of mass b could do more than double, given that he had done enough experimentaion. It would be a great discovery but it still in and of itself wouldn't solve the answer to perpetual motion. If you think that the statement the weights gain force from their swing actually yeilds useful information, as in by our definition generates extra potential energy, then tell us how and prove me wrong.

[Deven]

Michael, I sat here for a few minutes trying to make sense of what you were saying to me, and why, until I realized that your response was really meant for Bessler007!

I'm not trying to say anything other than show that if we're looking at putting in some energy and getting more because of an increase in velocity, we need to understand why velocity is squared first. Its all relative to the frame of reference. We also need to understand why gravity pulls at the speeds it does.

When I say that I don't think its from impact, I mean it in this context. I think impact is a part of the wheel, because of the bangs heard by witnesses, and I think gravity is part of the wheel because Bessler said so himself. What I do not think, however, is that either of these concepts were what truly powered his machine.

Maybe it was a way to trick the wheel into keeping its reference frame always relative to the mover, maybe it really was using the force of gravity to push in the ways he wanted it to, maybe it was CF, maybe it is something that no one has thought of yet. I'm not really sure! If I was I'd be in a better position. :)

[Fletcher]

That's an erudite summary of the facts & an astute opinion Deven.

[Bessler007]

Deven,

I think gravity is part of the wheel because it's damn near impossible to escape its effect. You can try to ignore it all you want. Lot's of luck.

I think gravity is part of the wheel because Bessler said so himself.

[Bessler007]

Fletcher,

I think perpetual motion naturally occurs but not to the point that it's observable. If that were so someone besides Bessler would have seen it long before he did.

What do you think?

? Makes me think he'd seen it somewhere before, like in nature ?

[Deven]

Deven,

I think gravity is part of the wheel because it's damn near impossible to escape its effect. You can try to ignore it all you want. Lot's of luck.

Unless you turn the wheel onto its side. Then, gravity's effect is negligible.



Thanks, Fletcher. Not going to lie, though. I had to look up the meaning of erudite. :)

[bluesgtr44]

I had to go through the books before I posted on this thread...very good one, Fletch. I believe you had questioned recently about Bessler making any profound statement(s) as to his belief of what PM was....now, this is from GB, page 52...J. Collins pub., this is where the english interpretation starts.

Is there such a thing in nature as perpetual motion, or a perpetuum mobile?

And that therefore, whether it may be possible for human hands to introduce into material bodies, in themselves lifeless, a permanent innate motive force, a constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficent weight, resulting, as it were, in a living machine that might seemingly have been in existence from the earliest days of creation.

Wow! Take a breath....that is all one sentence. LOL

I pointed this out, Fletch, because GB was put out in 1715...it seems that by the time he got to DT (1719), the question about his wheel being a true PM had really festered with the inclusion of wagers and descriptions by Wagner as to what his wheel really was. In DT this is covered by Bessler when he discusses "material/moral accidents". Stating that infinite perpetuity within a man made device was an impossibility because of our own nature....so to speak. Things wear out....

Just to chime in on the impact stuff. There were no witness reports of any banging/tapping/slapping/etc. in the first two one directional wheels. They were described as loud and that there were scratching sounds like poles sliding across one another. Some have mentioned padding being used to dampen the sound...well, it also dampens the impact, so what good would that be? He obviously didn't need it if he dampened it.....

This is from Bills site (ovyyus)...http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html

First wheel - Gera

Diameter = 4.6 feet
Thickness = 3.7 inches
Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded
Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use
Axle = ?
Sound = scratching noises from within
Power = ?

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 2.5 ell = 4.6 feet; reported thickness = 4 Leipzeg inches = 3.7 inches *

...


Second wheel - Draschwitz

Diameter = 9.3 feet
Thickness = 6 inches
Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded
Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use
Axle = 6 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches)
Sound = loud noise
Power = ?

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 5 ell = 9.3 feet; probable thickness = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches *

So, a pretty good difference in size and yet almost the same speed....these things were regulated! Somehow, someway he was able to regulate them and do it very well...The Draschwitz wheel was estimated at 56 rpm's and it was just over 9 ft.. Now, think about that thing rotating at 56 rpm's and the amount CF's being delivered....regulated....had to be regulated

GB...page 55...J. Collins...Gera wheel....

But later it was demonstrated on many occasions in the presence of the count himself and many other persons of high rank, including renowned mathematicians, engineers and scholars versed in all of Natures curiosities, The machine was even moved about from one place to another, but never failed to run as designed, and as a result of all this it could clearly be attested that the devices performance was authentic.

It would appear that this machine was not resting on columns that were firmly attached to the housing structure for stability....

GB...page 68...J. Collins...The interest in this tidbit is up to the reader.....it blows me away!

The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty".

...I do not think this was an observational mistake....

Sorry if I swayed a bit. I was just going through GB again looking for the part about his perception of PM and got a little carried away....;-)


Steve

[graham]

Nice post Steve, thankyou. I don't think that a loaded wheel would run as fast as an unloaded wheel. Maybe the translations or the observer was misunderstood.

Those thumps intrigue me because in his bidirectional wheels nothing happened until the wheel was rotated enough for the first thump to accur.

Something fell or shifted over to create the initial imbalance.

Let's imagine that there were three weights 120 deg apart( a single crossbar, the minimum required to create the effect) .That when shifted or fell caused other weights to swing over creating the imbalance.

Now if the imbalance were maintained through 180 deg it would allow the next weight at 120 deg to shift before the first had finished its run .
The whole arrangement would be trying to play catchup, forever seeking its "punctum quietus"

It's all so simple.

Graham

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Graham...thanks for the cudos'!

I don't think that a loaded wheel would run as fast as an unloaded wheel. Maybe the translations or the observer was misunderstood.

He went out of his way to point this out specifically. I mentioned awhile back ago about using a "T" bar lug wrench and cutting the bottom out of an old barrel I had. There is a difference in potential from the 3-6 o'clock positions in a CW rotating wheel. If I were him and saw that someone had noticed this and documented it...I would make damn sure it wasn't going to happen in my next wheel!

This is mentioned twice in GB, once when he is discussing the event as presented in the media of the time. The working is just slightly different than the actual document of endorsement he adds at the end of the book. So, I just do not think it was a mistake/misunderstanding or anything of that nature....I think it was real!

The thumps do not intrigue me as much as the fact that the one directional wheels had to be tied off....always OOB...or so it would seem. I do not think he lied about that. And the Gera wheel could be moved about, was basically Mobile. From the moment he had his epiphany, he was able to put out the Gera wheel with it's full performance in a matter of months. He knew what to do.....it was pretty simple for a man who had built over 100 of them already. I've said it before, I know....but, the one directional wheels were the principle in it's most basic form. After that it was cover up time because he knew what many of the people were looking for by this time....his secret.

I do stress the regulating aspect. Not that it has anything to do with the principal, but it will be a nesseccary component to maintain and contol the effect....whatever the effect is. I mean, something has to, right?

BY the time he got to the wheel at Kassel, his reputation and those of his enemies were at a fever pitch. Think about it....he knew they were looking for any clue as to what the heck was going on inside that wheel....he had to be ever more careful as time went on. This seemed to be fairly easy for him to achieve. The differences in the 4 wheels presented do not provide anything very mathematical figure out and leaves many more questions than answers. The relationship between the speed, diameter, thickness, one way or two way do not add up to just one size fits all....he could make it do what he wanted it to do within the confines of the diameter. The irregularity is on purpose....

I really wonder just how fast one could really go......over 100 rpm's? And if CpF is a main player in this, is it applied directly or is it integrated? Just one more thing....the thickness, this should be such a good clue as to how unimportant this aspect is and how important gravity is.....up and down...not back and forth....


Steve

[Gregory]

The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty".

I do not think this was an observational mistake....

I don't think that a loaded wheel would run as fast as an unloaded wheel. Maybe the translations or the observer was misunderstood.

Well, I think I can explain the strange effect Steve is mentioned. I believe it is not an exotic effect and can be replicated in Wm2d, as well as in the real world.

It requires two principle to be used. These are Centrifugal force and CoAM. I guess Bessler knew what degree of load he will apply to the wheel, and in this case (the amount of load is known) it is possible to calculate the mass needed for the compensation.

Two weights of the right mass balanced through pulleys or an other mechanism rotating around with the wheel and can slide in & out in radial slots. There are two tension springs of the right parameters attached to these weights, so when the wheel rotates at the terminal velocity, the weights are at the outside position due to the CF acting on them the springs have already extended out. The weights in this outside position are slowing the wheel down, so it would rotate at a higher rate without these weights. Now, when a load is applied it slows down the wheel and all the mechanisms driven inside. But because of the change in speed, the CF acting on the regulating weights also change and in turn the springs pull the weights to a position closer to the axle, therefore accelerate the wheel up... When the load is known, then I believe it is possible to calculate the parameters to achieve a zero change in the Wheel's output RPM which is observable for the viewers.

We have something slowing (the load), and an other thing accelerating. They just have to be the same amount for the mysterious effect to happen.

This is from the arm-chair philosopher... ;-)

The question is: Did Bessler know what was the load?
If he planned the load and applied himself, then I think the thing can be done through the way I mentioned... or maybe with a few more addition.

Cheers!