Impact is the Key

[Grimer]

Consider Figure 2 from Hans von Lieven's paper The Road to Perpetual Motion which pathfinder provided a link for (thanks pathfinder).

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... ecret2.jpg

The gun fixed to the earth fires at the vane and gives the disc and kinetic energy of 1/2 mv^2.

Consider next von Lieven's Figure 3. In this case the gun is also fixed to a similar disc and the gun plus disc has the same inertial characteristics as the vane plus disc.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... ecret3.jpg

Action = reaction so the recoil of the gun provides the right hand disc with the same kinetic energy as the left hand disc.

To quote Hans.

When we now fire the gun both wheels spin in opposite directions with equal velocity. One wheel is driven by the impact, the other by recoil. We have just doubled our available energy output without further expenditure.

So with the right hand disc fixed and the left hand disk free we have 1/2 mv^2 of KE.

And with the right hand disc free and the left hand disk free we have another 1/2 mv^2 of KE.

So our total energy E = mv^2.

So if we fired our bullet at the velocity of light our total energy would be;

E = mc^2.

How interesting. But let's not get diverted from our task of understanding the Bessler wheel.

What happens if we fix the vane wheel to the earth instead of the gun? Now we only have 1/2.mv^2 and the gun shoots off like a rocket - or since in this case it is attached to a disc, like a Catherine wheel.

So the optimum arrangement for the maximum energy is to have both wheels free with 50% of the total energy available going to one wheel and 50% going to t'other - as one would expect from information theory.

So Kinetic Energy is not conserved. But if we neglect losses of energy going down into the materials in the form of heat, etc., and losses in the form of sound radiation, etc., then momentum is conserved. The left hand disc rotates clockwise and the earth to which the gun is attached rotates widdershins.

Th momentum imparted to the disc is mV. The momentum imparted to the earth is Mv.

Because M is very much bigger than m, v is very much smaller that V and escapes people's attention.

When I got to the point in von Lieven's brilliant paper where the energy available doubled, I recognised a similarity to a phenomena well know to structural engineers.

If you hang a weight on a cable and lower it onto a beam so that it just touches the beam without deflecting it. Then gradually slacken the string so that the weight is transferred ever so slowly to the beam, the deflection of the beam will be 1 inch say.

If on the other hand you suddenly cut the cable the deflection of the beam will be 2 inch. In short, there is twice as much energy available to deflect the beam with very fast (impact) loading than there is with very slow loading.

In an earlier post I made a reference to Archimedes. To get that reference I carried out a google search with the phrase "give me a lever" but when I looked at the wiki article I found the the original quote doesn't mention levers or fulcrums but is simply

"Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth."

Since we seem to have many linguists on the forum here is the original in Greek.

δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω

And when you think about it that is all you need to move the earth, "a place to stand on".

If I push a weight up above my head I push down on the earth. I move the earth's centre of mass.

Indeed, if I lift my arm and command the earth to move, it does. Not, of course because I have commanded it but because the centre of mass of the earth has been moved by the raising of my arm.

So when I raise a weight up in the air and give it positive gravitational energy I push the earth down and give it negative terrestrial energy. When I let go of the weight and it falls down towards the earth the positive gravitational energy is released and the negative terrestrial energy is also released as the earth rises up to meet the ball.

The way energy is stored in material being raised up is vastly different from the way material energy is stored in free fall.

In the material lifted up the compressive and tensile strains are macro strains. In material in free-fall the strains are on an infinitesimal scale.

Also macro strain operates on external surface contact areas of the material whereas infinitesimal strains operate on the infinitesimal internal surface contact areas which are proportional to the volume of the material.

I briefly touched upon the subject of strains in this earlier post.

In the next post I will detail, inter alia, how we recognised that force (stress) was merely an alias for strain and that, as in the case of the gun and recoil, the energy available in a nominally closed system viewed from without can be up to twice that conventionally assumed.

[Michael]

Grimer, there are some mistakes here.

Point 1. M.T. states impact is not the way.
Point 2. Energy is not doubled.
Point 3. When you say we

how we recognised that force (stress) was merely an alias for strain and that,

, do you mean you or is there a we?

Now this is completely off topic but I've seen you state this for years now on various groups. What caught my attention is this ( if you want to talk about it ). Force is action upon matter. Strain is a state of distortion matter is exhibiting, for whatever reason. Key here being "for whatever reason". Take the force of gravity. It is undetermined why gravity is, although there are theories. Obviously gravity needs matter to exist, as in the form of the earth. But gravity extends outside of the earth. Now relativity has this idea that space time/time is bending around the earth, and this is what the gravitational field is. And this idea fits in well with your idea of a strain of some type. But it is still unproven if this is really true. There has never been a measurement of the fabric of spacetime, if it actually exists. And here is the main point. Let's say all of this is true, for arguments sake. If all of this is true, none of this explains the bottom line which is, what is the force that is causing spacetime to want to bend around the earth in the first place?
Going back to the beginning. Force is unbiased; it is action. It is a pure verb. Strain isn't. It is a state that matter or structure is exhibiting. An unbalanced state. But...arising from what? Strain to me, seems secondary. Where force isn't. Unless of course it is proven that there is a structure to everything, which is at the moment unproven. But this again begs the question, what though then is the reason for the strain of the structure? Especially since in physics all unbalanced states seek equalibrium; finally measured as entropy.

The implication of this is wrong.

If you hang a weight on a cable and lower it onto a beam so that it just touches the beam without deflecting it. Then gradually slacken the string so that the weight is transferred ever so slowly to the beam, the deflection of the beam will be 1 inch say.

If on the other hand you suddenly cut the cable the deflection of the beam will be 2 inch. In short, there is twice as much energy available to deflect the beam with very fast (impact) loading than there is with very slow loading.

You haven't stated any measurements to quantify the distance of motion of the balance beam or the weight but its safe to say when you slowly lower the weight you are in fact lowering its potential before it works on the lever.

[Grimer]

Thank you for your reply, Michael.

Point 1. Noted.

Point 2. I didn't say it was.

Point 3. No, and yes.

> Now this is completely off topic ...

I disagree.

> Force is action upon matter

And matter is action upon force.

Obviously I don't believe in the theory of relativity. I approach the phenomena of stress and strain from the materials I have experimented with.

> ... finally measured as entropy.

and ectropy.

> ... it's safe to say when you slowly lower the weight you are in fact
> lowering its potential before it works on the lever.

You are increasing the compressive strain in the cable.

[Michael]

And matter is action upon force.

Force is not a thing. Therefore matter cannot have an action upon it. If you think it can please explain.

Obviously I don't believe in the theory of relativity. I approach the phenomena of stress and strain from the materials I have experimented with.

> ... finally measured as entropy.

and ectropy.

Please show some kind of proof for this.

> ... it's safe to say when you slowly lower the weight you are in fact
> lowering its potential before it works on the lever.

You are increasing the compressive strain in the cable.

Please explain what you mean because the "strain" from a weight on a cable has a zero value in this model.

By the way,
you have a video in your page, number 34 that shows an interesting movement. What is that exactly?

[Stewart]

Bessler was surprised at 'sGravesande's treatise about Kinetic impact forces being a squared velocity relationship i.e. non-linear - IIRC, in Stewart's forum he says he has a copy owned by Bessler where the squared velocity is underlined, with notations - Wagner pin pointed some information in a press statement released by Bessler about his force to turn his wheels being a squared force proportional to the diameter - so why would Bessler be surprised at 'sGravesande's findings if impact were his prime mover ????? - please don't quote me & read Stewarts forum for yourself, it's been a while !

Just to clarify a few things about Fletcher's comments here....

Firstly I'm not sure we know what Bessler's thoughts were on 'sGravesande's treatise as I don't think there's any record of him commenting on it yet. (He was obviously quite upset before the treatise was published over whatever happened when 'sGravesande met up with him and examined the wheel though). Having said that I do have a copy of the 'sGravesande treatise that was sent to Bessler in a letter from someone called Wolfarth. I also have the handwritten draft of Bessler's reply to the letter. (Thanks go to John Collins for providing these documents). I've nearly finished transcribing the letter and Bessler's response (which has been painstaking work due to the poor quality) and once I've translated them I'll post the results. On the treatise, some words have been underlined in pen as follows (from my draft translation):

"the others multiply the mass by the square of the velocity, in order to determine this same force."

"Imagine eleven balls of some flexible material with spring,"
i.e. a flexible, springy material - or elastic material (he's talking about elastic collisions here).

"The elasticity of ivory, which is not the most perfect that we have, is sufficient to increase the force more than six hundred times, in the example that one has just put forward."

The question is who underlined them - was it Wolfarth or Bessler? The only way to find out would be to analyse the ink maybe and see if it matched that of Bessler's draft reply.

My draft translation of 'sGravesande's treatise is available for anyone to read in my private forum and I'll be releasing my final version soon. Anyone interested in the whole mv vs. mv² debate that was raging in Bessler's time might also be interested in a sort of review of the situation written some years later (1775) in the London Review of English and Foreign Literature (William Kenrick & others). I'll post a copy in my forum now under the topic 'sGravesande, but if you have any comments to make on it please put them in the topic 'sGravesande - working topic and comments.

Stewart

[murilo]

``δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω.``

Tell me about!... :)
Grimer, your erudition puts all of us in our proper place - me at least!
Cheers! M.

[Stewart]

Point 1. M.T. states impact is not the way.

I think you're misinterpreting what is said in MT. Here's my translation of the part I assume you're referring to in MT52 ...

"... I say here only this much: no wheel shall move through strong blows, but much rather the paddles shall thereby be smashed into 1000 pieces, and it would also happen if done with projectiles*, sap. sat.**"

* Geschooß/Geschoß = projectile/shot/bullet/ball
** sap. sat. = sapienti satis = enough for the wise.

NOTE: the translation in the wiki is wrong and says that the paddles would smash the wheel to pieces, when it actually says that the paddles would be smashed to pieces. The paddles are the wooden boards of the wheel (think paddle wheel) not the clappers/mallets.

So, if you look at the image and think about what he says and what it rules out, I think that it only rules out impacts as a way of turning the wheel i.e. hitting the wheel around like a hoop and stick, which is fine as we already know that the cause of the wheel's rotation is its constant out of balance condition. It doesn't however allow us to rule out impact altogether IMO, as weights could be impacting with other weights inside the wheel in order to maintain the overbalance for example.

Stewart

[Michael]

Well, some wheels had no sound. And lead weights weights would probably deform, but yes point taken.

There's this though Stewart;

which is fine as we already know that the cause of the wheel's rotation is its constant out of balance condition.

A few debate this.

[Stewart]

Well, some wheels had no sound. And lead weights weights would probably deform, but yes point taken.

Yes, it was just one example. However, the 'quiet' wheels (Draschwitz and maybe also Gera) Bessler says were a result of there being felt coverings and also that they worked on different 'principles' - one being uni-directional and the other bi-directional. I'm not necessarily endorsing "impact is the key" btw, but rather just seeing what we can and can't deduce from what Bessler says. For example, the noise of weights impacting doesn't necessarily mean that the impacts are important - it might just be the sound of them coming to rest against the wheel but the impact does nothing particular to make the wheel work. However, Bessler does say that he hasn't deliberately added noise-makers to his wheel, as Wagner was suggesting, but that the impact sounds are actually made by the wheel's true mechanism.

A few debate this.

Why?

Stewart

[Grimer]

``δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω.``

Tell me about!... :)
Grimer, your erudition puts all of us in our proper place - me at least!
Cheers! M.

I wouldn't want anyone labouring under a false impression as to my linguistic abilities. The are limited to schoolboy French, and Latin dropped in the third form in favour of physics and chemistry rather than general science - which is pretty disgraceful really since my mother spoke three languages (Dutch,French and English).

The quote is simply a cut and paste job. There are people on this forum who are absolutely brilliant linguists. I thought they would like to see the original Archimedes quote and not some bowdlerised version.

[Grimer]

...
By the way,
you have a video in your page, number 34 that shows an interesting movement. What is that exactly?

Curiosity is good. Dangerous but good.

Here is a post from Fizzx. Follow the link and all will be explained.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Replies: 47
Views: 409
Forum: Inventor's Corner Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:43 pm Subject: Abeling Gravity Motor

Frank wrote:
Harvey wrote:
@Frank,
If gravity pulls on the 'Wheel Sid
.........................................................................
demonstration of this.
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... ent=X1.flv

I'll try and find the details of the explanations behind it.


By this moment I was think "I am a big deal"))
Thanks Frank Nice pic's


I've found the letter.

==================================================
Hello Frank,

Hope you are fine, as you seem to be absent from the most interesting
places, including this group. I know you will love this one:

http://www.blazelabs.com/e-exp21.asp

remember to check out the movie on the same page.

We exposed some more lies in mainstream teaching, proved the existence
of the aether wind in terms of ultra-cosmic radiation, the pushing
force of gravity, and the possibility of making a flag which responds
to this wind. Next job is to work on the windmill.

Best Regards
Xavier Borg
==================================================

Mmmm.... he's a bit late. The Bessler wheel responded to the gravitational wind three centuries ago

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Michael]

Michael wrote:
A few debate this.

Why?

Stewart

I didn't mean this as a way of talking in third person but in that there are people, some on here, that debate the idea that they were overbalanced wheels ( enviromental etc. ). There is no real proof that they were. I'm keeping my idea on it quiet for now.

[Stewart]

I didn't mean this as a way of talking in third person but in that there are people, some on here, that debate the idea that they were overbalanced wheels ( enviromental etc. ). There is no real proof that they were. I'm keeping my idea on it quiet for now.

That surprises me, given the mountain of evidence. I think you'll find that even those who favour environmental changes as the source of power, such as Ovyyus and Fletcher, have also concluded that the cause of the wheels rotation is overbalance. Not only does Bessler state on numerous occasions that his wheel rotates because it is overbalanced, but it's possible to come to that conclusion from what we know of the set-up. The fact that the wheel, axle and journals all rotated together means there are very few ways of making the wheel turn from the inside. This feature of the wheel even impressed Wagner, and the best he could do to explain how Bessler achieved it was to come up with a fraudulent spring-wound spit-jack device hanging from the axle - the weight of the hanging device providing a 'fixed' point for the spring to act on. Bessler said his wheel contained no such device hanging on the axle. Another possible way to cause rotation might be to cause weights to impact on boards and bash the wheel around. Bessler says in MT52 that that is no good, and it wouldn't be able to self start anyway or give a very smooth rotation. If you can come up with a way of causing a wheel to rotate without any contact with anything outside of it, and self start upon release I'd be very surprised and would like to hear it - but even if you can, do we just ignore Bessler when tells us his wheel turns through overbalance? I think we should all be past this point by now, no matter where you think Bessler's wheel gets its power, you should be able to see that the wheel turns through an out of balance condition and that we now need to find how to maintain that condition! Whether the overbalance wheel is needed or whether you can do without it and make different types of PM machines once you've discovered the secret is another matter altogether.

Stewart

[Grimer]

Well, I'm happy to announce that Impact is indeed the Key and the search for the principle which drives Bessler's wheel is now over.

When you raise a weight up against the force of gravity under constant velocity you only need half the energy that you gain when the weight drops under constant gravitational acceleration.

The maths shows it rather nicely

Constant velocity = dx/dt

Constant acceleration = d²x/dt² = dx/dt x dx/dt

So in effect we have two velocites, one mounted on top of the other like the famous London double decker.





We have two dollops of Kinetic Energy given to us by a weight falling under the acceleration of gravity. We have 1/2.mv^2 + 1/2.mv^2. We have mv^2. Impact give twice the deflection, ergo, twice the energy.

But because it's a BOGOF (buy one, get one free) we have to catch it when we see it. We have to catch it with a ratch it.

And that's why when you look at the first page of clever Hans von Lieven's paper what you see is a red ratchet and a green ratchet.

Moreover, you don't need a wheel like Bessler used.

A simpler arrangement is a paternoster lift to take the heavy beads up to the top. The floors fold down and allow the heavy beads to fall under gravity to the bottom where they are caught
by a bucket suspended between two scapular leaf springs (think of milk maid's yokes). The maximum travel of the ends of the yokes is caught by ratchets.

The beads are fed back to the paternoster and the springs allowed to relax against a load putting their strain energy into a device (mechanical, hydraulic, electrical - take your pick) which drives the paternoster.

So all that remains is to build 'em.

Last builder with a working device is a sissy.

And now I'm off to town to buy a doll for a granddaughter.

[silverfox]

For whatever it's worth...

If Einstein is correct and E = MC squared, then adding more energy to an object should have the same effect as adding more mass to it untill that energy is either transmited or transformed in some manner.

If that troubles you Grimer, let me simply remind you that Einstein's equation is merely an extrapolation of the old Newtonian one that has good old fashioned gunpowder charges and cannonballs to back it up. Einstein simply took to that to the n'th degree which was the speed of light in his books.

So let's simply say that the underlying "principle" is at least a sound hypothesis from which to begin. I have my own quibbles with relativity but not so much to ignore separating any genuine babies from most of the bathwater it is in how I choose to dispose of it.

So any extra energy we impart to a gryo to make it spin should be indistinguishable from an increase in the gyro's own mass, at least untill that energy has been spent and that spinning action comes to a stop. Not "is" mass, per se but behaves just like it, from an observational standpoint while the spinning takes place.

By that same token that additional energy that is "equal to the presence of much more mass" should also be equal to the presence of an increase in the gyro's own internal gravity that causes it to behave as if that genuinely existed as well. Along with the spin all those effects temporarily alter how the gyro behaves and reacts in response to the Earth's own gravitational field.

For want of a better term, we could say the gyro has temporarily taken on all the characteristics and appearances of a minature or micro "satellite", valiantly struggling but ultimately failing to establish an orbit of it's own inside and against the larger and more formidable one of the Earth.

That is how it briefly manages to defy gravity in the peculiar way that it does. It is the presence of enough energy in it that hasn't yet been translated into it's spin that gives it all the qualities of enough mass and gravity of it's own to temporarily manage it.

We are of course talking about a purely "conditional state" that is neither one thing or another while it is in progress. So we are talking about an alteration strictly in behavior or effects that can only be described "like" or "as if" that additional mass was present and creating "mass-like" and "gravity-like" effects without being able to reliably measure or certify either of them as such.

When an impact causes the motion of any object to be suddenly stopped, the unspent energy that would have carried it further should also produce some of the effects of it having more mass at that point than it actually does. How much more, of course, depends entirely on how much energy remains to be transmitted as that motion under whatever conditions it is taking place in.