Is It Possible ?

[P-Motion]

Many scientists have said perpetual motion is impossible.
There are two examples they have given.

One is if a ball bearing is rolled down a ramp and rolls up another ramp (or the other side of a U-shaped ramp), it will do so only for so long.
They reason that if it were possible, then it would roll up the other ramp to the same height and keep repeating this process.
This has been show not to work.

The second example they have given is if you have 4 weights on one side and 5 on the other and the shape used is a "D" shape. This also does not work. Yet there is an extra weight on one side.

There are problems with both of these examples.
Sometimes, in understanding why something does not work, it will help you to understand what will.

[ovyyus]

So, what's the question?

[P-Motion]

So, what's the question?

Who knows, maybe I am wrong and perpetual motion is not possible.
2 references that scientists use to illustrate why have been given.
Either the scientists made ussumptions without examining the facts, or they are right and it is not possible.
So, is it possible ? Or are the examples used by scientists simple examples that illustrate why it is not possible ?

[AB Hammer]

Well when one highly educated person and another highly educated person get together and can't solve a problem. They instantly say it can't be done, and there diplomas prove it.

[ovyyus]

Until PM can be proven with something more substantial than a claim or a theory, the standard view will hold true.

Either the scientists made ussumptions without examining the facts, or they are right and it is not possible.

Your polarized statement doesn't help much. I thought it was well understood that science is ready and willing to examine new data and update theories where necessary? Of course, that can't happen when the 'new data' is just untested opinion :D

[P-Motion]

Until PM can be proven with something more substantial than a claim or a theory, the standard view will hold true.

P-Motion wrote:
Either the scientists made ussumptions without examining the facts, or they are right and it is not possible.


Your polarized statement doesn't help much. I thought it was well understood that science is ready and willing to examine new data and update theories where necessary? Of course, that can't happen when the 'new data' is just untested opinion :D

Some scientists do support the possibility of pm citing the universe has motion yet is in a state of perpetual conservation.
Yet, by considering how force is applied in both concepts, it can be understood why they did not work.
An example in the D shaped test. Since the weight on the top right side would be on a ramp, this reduces the force it is exerting on the weights on the left side. If the top of the D were an incline of 30 degrees, the force potential of a weight on the ramp would be 50%.
Yet, the question was not polarized. Scientists have used specific arguments against pm being possible. That is being polarized.
To examine the merits of their arguments is to see if they have made a valid claim.
@ovyyus, scientists and engineers have always relied on math as a tool.
Why should this be a negative in establishing the guidelines to build and test a prototype ?

[10x]

Is it posible? Unkown. Some toys show a potential of at least coservation of energy.

The concept here is gravity as a drive is to convert potential energy into kinetic energy, cf , inertia, and so on with some way of causing a reset.

One way to view a potential is the pendulum. It takes so much work to set it, released it then goes past the start point to stop and then reversing direction
swinging again past the start point then taking less work to get it to position to do this again.

This used in clocks can allow us to use a work by spring for a long time due to the minimal amount it takes to keep the pendulum in oscillation.

LOL not perpetual motion, but give you the idea.

Look at the orbit of the Earth. It may not be perpetual, but it is going to continue for a long time.

Yes it is such that the given point against such is simply; that an object in motion tend at continuing until a force reacts opposing it is not in reality achieved: is the argument against such.

Nothing I have said goes against it, Nor does anything I have read on this board short of the original Bessler claims and Finsrud pendulum gravity drive that might be such.

Do not give up so easily. I doubt most of the ideas on this and other old ideas will work concerning this problem. Study the basics of mechanics and physics. It is not an easy task. Bessler worked the ideas for a long time to get were he was. I an just one of the few that want to believe he did it.

[ovyyus]

@ovyyus, scientists and engineers have always relied on math as a tool.
Why should this be a negative in establishing the guidelines to build and test a prototype ?

You're the only one defending the obvious merits of math. Most sensible people here simply accept that fact and try to move on to the engineering.

I think your real problem is how you might apply and test your math tool against a physical build. It doesn't seem like you have the skills/resources to do that on your own. That being the case, you have an opportunity to develop your people skills in an attempt to convince others that your idea has build-worthy merit in the hope that someone skilled in that area might help you out. Perhaps someone with Ralph's shop skills is the perfect solution for you, but I think you blew your chances with him :D

Have you noticed that good people skills require virtually no math whatsoever?

[P-Motion]

Do not give up so easily. I doubt most of the ideas on this and other old ideas will work concerning this problem. Study the basics of mechanics and physics. It is not an easy task. Bessler worked the ideas for a long time to get were he was. I an just one of the few that want to believe he did it.

10x, one of my ideas is based on what I think Bessler did. I could be wrong. But to pursue it, I do need to believe as you have mentioned.
Thank you for your support. I hope it is not misplaced.

[P-Motion]

@ovyyus, scientists and engineers have always relied on math as a tool.
Why should this be a negative in establishing the guidelines to build and test a prototype ?

You're the only one defending the obvious merits of math. Most sensible people here simply accept that fact and try to move on to the engineering.

I think your real problem is how you might apply and test your math tool against a physical build. It doesn't seem like you have the skills/resources to do that on your own. That being the case, you have an opportunity to develop your people skills in an attempt to convince others that your idea has build-worthy merit in the hope that someone skilled in that area might help you out. Perhaps someone with Ralph's shop skills is the perfect solution for you, but I think you blew your chances with him :D

Have you noticed that good people skills require virtually no math whatsoever?

Unfortunately, we kept moving when Iw as a kid. I guess my dad being 1/4 or 1/2 Russian had problems with Americans hating Russians. I won't apologize for that. It has caused me many problems.
I lost my last job because I wanted to meet a Ukranian woman. Doesn't go well in a small southern town.
We do have to play the hand fate deals us.
I just look at it that my dad hates me for everything that happened to him in America. He is nice to my brothers, but someone needs to be his release and I am the lucky one.
But then, what is more important ? Proving pepretual motion works ?
If I move to Russia, I can have someone in my life. It is an easy choice. For me anyway.
Fortunately, Sveta speaks English quite well. This would let us actually communicate. With English being my dads' 4th language and my mom not speaking Norwegian, I think my dad felt idsolated.
I mean really, given that it was the 50's and Americans hated anyone associated with Russia, some easy math there. McCarthyism is what I am refering to.
I guess it shows how the past resonates in the present.

[10x]

P-Motion
I can only go with what I see as some basic concepts.

I look at the wheel part as a center balanced arm. I see the t pendulums as part of a compound lever that is through the wheel axle.

I do not see the concept of the shifting weights as more a disconnect and transer to the wheel side of the lesser weight .

Regreatably at the time drawings were done, the folks had no way to truly draw it to size. LOL.

Still working on it though I can see some potential. It seems he used the two pendulums with eight weights, or four per side per one revolution. The center would have had to use eight beams, or four per individual pendulum motion.
LOL more like a dual four cycle action.

I wish you and all folks working on the free energy or conservation of energy formats luck. From the price of fuel we may have ran out of time, though necessity is sometimes the mother of invention.

[ovyyus]

We do have to play the hand fate deals us.

Do we.

As Lawrence of Arabia would say, "nothing is written".

[P-Motion]

P-Motion
I can only go with what I see as some basic concepts.

I look at the wheel part as a center balanced arm. I see the t pendulums as part of a compound lever that is through the wheel axle.

I do not see the concept of the shifting weights as more a disconnect and transer to the wheel side of the lesser weight .

Regreatably at the time drawings were done, the folks had no way to truly draw it to size. LOL.

Still working on it though I can see some potential. It seems he used the two pendulums with eight weights, or four per side per one revolution. The center would have had to use eight beams, or four per individual pendulum motion.
LOL more like a dual four cycle action.

I wish you and all folks working on the free energy or conservation of energy formats luck. From the price of fuel we may have ran out of time, though necessity is sometimes the mother of invention.

10x,
u might be closer than you think. What I wondered about is similar to what you said.
I have asked if his use of pendulums was to try to convey a principle he used.
An example is if a weight can roll from 27" from center to 30".
That as the wheel rotates, at 45 degrees (135 degrees from top center), an over head ramp somewhat mimicing a pendulums motion controls the motion of the weight.
If so, then a weight can be returned to 27" from the axis while developing torque/momentum. The ramp would be 14" to one side and down 14" and end 17" below the center of the axis. This would mean that the weight had to be able to travel 3" in its' socket. Of course, variations can be considered as alittle different appraoch might provide better results.
And with every arm, this behavior repeats itself.
One adavntage to this would be the weight has the potential to still generate some momentum.
So I guess, with me, I'd agree that you are thinking of one way in which Bessler probably did do it.

[P-Motion]

Have you noticed that good people skills require virtually no math whatsoever?

It is a bit of a nasty trade off, isn't it?
I guess I would be better off droppping the math and engineering. I don't think I could seperate the 2. :))

[ovyyus]

Perhaps you miss the point?