@broli,
And, where's the proof that transfer of momentum has anything to do with the obtainment of excess energy? Just saying that someone is ignorant when that one points out that there are no such arguments doesn't cut the mustard.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
Transfer of momentum may play a role and has to be accounted for when optimizing the device only when excess energy has already been generated due to other reasons. Transfer of momentum itself cannot be the generator of excess energy causing the perpetuum mobile effect.
Therefore, in a thread discussing how to build a perpetuum mobile transfer of momentum can only be a side issue.
Therefore, in a thread discussing how to build a perpetuum mobile transfer of momentum can only be a side issue.
re: energy producing experiments
Broli is correct. The thread is about these two formulas, and the experiments that have made use of these two formulas. It is about the transfer of momentum from a larger object to a smaller object, and the subsequent increase in kinetic energy.
(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m2 * v3) + (m1 * 0)
After this equation is satisfied we can go to an inequality that is similar to jim_mich’s principle.
½ * m2 * v3² > (½ * m1 * v1²) + (½ * m2 * v2²)
(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m2 * v3) + (m1 * 0)
After this equation is satisfied we can go to an inequality that is similar to jim_mich’s principle.
½ * m2 * v3² > (½ * m1 * v1²) + (½ * m2 * v2²)
Pequaide you are also not being helpful one bit. I send you numerous pm's,and asked you to read them, for live chats to make progress faster and you didn't read them at all. You are yourself quite the stubborn one. I would like to hold live chats so I can help with the data visualization and experiments you do.
Currently there's no momentum (pun intended) behind this whole project.
Currently there's no momentum (pun intended) behind this whole project.
re: energy producing experiments
Two body's of different masses can have the same momentum [if traveling in the same direction] - it requires that they have different velocities though [e.g. 4 kg's x 5 m/s or say 2kg's x 10 m/s] - but the available kinetic energy to do work [joules] is quite different as per the ke formula using 1/2mv^2 [joules] - so momentum is conserved but ability/capacity to do work is more velocity dependant than mass dependant & if you could successfully transfer full or most of the momentum from one body to another there would be an increase or decrease in joules - but the act of attempting to transfer momentum always has energy losses so it's never perfect - only physical experiments can really determine the extent of those losses, depending on the elasticity, materials, angle of collision etc - dang, I said I'd keep out of it this round ;)
re: energy producing experiments
I see Fletcher's E-mail sight and skype, but I don't see yours broli. just ask I can answer publicly.
re: energy producing experiments
This is a serious question Broli, I can't or else I misunderstand the totality of your query. But then neither does the scientific community or else we'd all be exploring other planets commercially right now. Can you tell me what you mean?If momentum is transferred from a heavy body to a light one completely excess energy is created. Can YOU tell me why?
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
re: energy producing experiments
Like I said, transfer of momentum cannot be the origin of the excess energy we’re talking about (the excess energy causing perpetuum mobile effect) because the momentum to be transferred has to have a pre-existing energy reservoir as an origin.
Excess energy (causing perpetuum mobile) appears out of no pre-existing energy reservoir. Therefore, if perpetuum mobile is the topic then transfer of energy has no place in the discussion
Excess energy (causing perpetuum mobile) appears out of no pre-existing energy reservoir. Therefore, if perpetuum mobile is the topic then transfer of energy has no place in the discussion
re: energy producing experiments
At a level omnibus is correct - momentum assumes that an object has motion - we can't say what force caused that velocity but we can deduce how much force it will take to stop that motion, & how much to return it to its original velocity again, if we want too.
A Free Energy machine/wheel is misnomered as a Perpetual Motion machine/wheel - you cannot create energy from nowhere/nothing, so that means you must sequest it from somewhere else [tap the reservoir of energy] & then use it for your bidding in your machine - a FE machine is an engine that consumes energy & outputs work.
A Free Energy machine/wheel is misnomered as a Perpetual Motion machine/wheel - you cannot create energy from nowhere/nothing, so that means you must sequest it from somewhere else [tap the reservoir of energy] & then use it for your bidding in your machine - a FE machine is an engine that consumes energy & outputs work.
Omnibus - the source of excess 'energy' is gravity. Pure & simple. Momentum equals Mass times Velocity, but we can forget that Momentum also equals Force times Time. Like a rocket burn ... think about this for a while.
OK - now that you've thought about that - think about Earths G-force. This is a Force, that is constantly available - for practical purposes - anywhere on Earth. It is available for as long as we want it - so obviously we have an unlimited "reservoir" of Force times Time - hence an unlimited supply of Momentum. If we want it. Otherwise that Force times Time simply goes into Stress & Strain in the materials that are resisting the available Acceleration.
The principle that pequaide has given to us could perhaps be described in two parts.
A - we use heavy balanced weights to accumulate momentum by virtue of a small overbalance weight.
B - the accumulated momentum is relatively slow (compared to freefall) but massive (compared to the small overbalance weight). This momentum needs to be transfered to the small overbalance weight. If this can be done successfully with minimal losses, the result should be a large increase in velocity (because Momentum is conserved).
This first part A is not intuitive, and we can easily miss the significance of this. You really have to start crunching numbers to appreciate why this is important. Let me attempt to re-phrase this, and perhaps you can see it differently:
What is the limiting factor to the amount of energy we can take out of a falling mass? Most people would say "height", or "distance" or "displacement". I say Time. When a falling mass hits rock bottom - the real thing it has run out of is Time. Without Time - no more momentum (which is Force time Time). Note - we never run out of g-force! Time is the restraint.
So how can we extract more energy out of a falling mass? Make it fall slower. But wait: that's too easy. Most methods we use to make a mass fall slower are forms of restraint - friction, hydraulic damping ... energy wasters!
The trick is to allow a falling mass to fall slower (Bessler hint: rain falls, snow falls ... ) BUT not to waste this extra Force & Time as heat or Strain etc, but to accumulate Momentum by allowing Acceleration.
If you crunch those numbers that pequaide has been giving to us - you can see that large amounts of momentum are accumulated this way. The source is gravity and time.
However - the end result is a large amount of mass moving very slowly. This is why part B - a transfer of Momentum from the heavy mass to the smaller mass is required. Because "energy" is defined as proportional to Velocity squared - the production of a large increase in Velocity is tantamount to the production of 'Energy'. Personally - I think this is a numbers gain, and the real production of 'energy' occured in part A - but that's semantics. We are stuck with words & definitions that history has given us.
OK - now that you've thought about that - think about Earths G-force. This is a Force, that is constantly available - for practical purposes - anywhere on Earth. It is available for as long as we want it - so obviously we have an unlimited "reservoir" of Force times Time - hence an unlimited supply of Momentum. If we want it. Otherwise that Force times Time simply goes into Stress & Strain in the materials that are resisting the available Acceleration.
The principle that pequaide has given to us could perhaps be described in two parts.
A - we use heavy balanced weights to accumulate momentum by virtue of a small overbalance weight.
B - the accumulated momentum is relatively slow (compared to freefall) but massive (compared to the small overbalance weight). This momentum needs to be transfered to the small overbalance weight. If this can be done successfully with minimal losses, the result should be a large increase in velocity (because Momentum is conserved).
This first part A is not intuitive, and we can easily miss the significance of this. You really have to start crunching numbers to appreciate why this is important. Let me attempt to re-phrase this, and perhaps you can see it differently:
What is the limiting factor to the amount of energy we can take out of a falling mass? Most people would say "height", or "distance" or "displacement". I say Time. When a falling mass hits rock bottom - the real thing it has run out of is Time. Without Time - no more momentum (which is Force time Time). Note - we never run out of g-force! Time is the restraint.
So how can we extract more energy out of a falling mass? Make it fall slower. But wait: that's too easy. Most methods we use to make a mass fall slower are forms of restraint - friction, hydraulic damping ... energy wasters!
The trick is to allow a falling mass to fall slower (Bessler hint: rain falls, snow falls ... ) BUT not to waste this extra Force & Time as heat or Strain etc, but to accumulate Momentum by allowing Acceleration.
If you crunch those numbers that pequaide has been giving to us - you can see that large amounts of momentum are accumulated this way. The source is gravity and time.
However - the end result is a large amount of mass moving very slowly. This is why part B - a transfer of Momentum from the heavy mass to the smaller mass is required. Because "energy" is defined as proportional to Velocity squared - the production of a large increase in Velocity is tantamount to the production of 'Energy'. Personally - I think this is a numbers gain, and the real production of 'energy' occured in part A - but that's semantics. We are stuck with words & definitions that history has given us.
re: energy producing experiments
Energy can be obtained ‘out of nothing’ (without tapping into a pre-existing energy reservoir), as it were, only due to gravity and the proper construction of a machine. That has been proven not only theoretically but also experimentally when excess energy is produced discontinuously by using magnetic propulsor. CoE can be violated for sure, that’s taken for granted and isn’t the point I’m making.
@Fletcher said it, “momentum assumes that an object has motion�. In order for an object to have motion it had to be at the expense of a pre-existing energy reservoir. Extracting energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir excludes that energy from being excess energy (the basis of perpetuum mobile) no matter how fast or slow it’s being extracted. Time is irrelevant.
The wheel we’re talking about has the inherent property (no matter how slow it rotates) to be unbalanced at any of its positions. That’s the basis of it being perpetuum mobile, nothing else, no dynamic effects play a role in creating the said effect. The excess torque proved to be the characteristic of said wheel, however, is overwhelmed by the forces of friction in commonly made crude models. The same way as a crudely made internal combustion engine will refuse to work no matter how clear the principle of its action is. Therefore, the only problem we are having in our strive to have perpetuum mobile working is solely the lack of a skillful manufacturing of that wheel ensuring friction below the levels of the inherent excess torque. Nothing else.
@Fletcher said it, “momentum assumes that an object has motion�. In order for an object to have motion it had to be at the expense of a pre-existing energy reservoir. Extracting energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir excludes that energy from being excess energy (the basis of perpetuum mobile) no matter how fast or slow it’s being extracted. Time is irrelevant.
The wheel we’re talking about has the inherent property (no matter how slow it rotates) to be unbalanced at any of its positions. That’s the basis of it being perpetuum mobile, nothing else, no dynamic effects play a role in creating the said effect. The excess torque proved to be the characteristic of said wheel, however, is overwhelmed by the forces of friction in commonly made crude models. The same way as a crudely made internal combustion engine will refuse to work no matter how clear the principle of its action is. Therefore, the only problem we are having in our strive to have perpetuum mobile working is solely the lack of a skillful manufacturing of that wheel ensuring friction below the levels of the inherent excess torque. Nothing else.
re: energy producing experiments
Omnibus - i'm interested in this magnetic propulsor - could you please post a link? I actually think that there are many ways of extracting free energy from gravity, and it doesn't surprise me if electromechanical or hydraulic solutions are used to extract virtually the same energy Bessler was extracting.
I also strongly believe we can extract ambiant heat energy, but that's a whole different story and I don't think Bessler used this.
One thing at a time - I think a gravity wheel should be the easiest thing from amateur builders to recreate, hence my strong interest in gravity in particular. But for bulk energy, i'm thinking a gravity wheel driving a heat pump might be something ...
I also strongly believe we can extract ambiant heat energy, but that's a whole different story and I don't think Bessler used this.
One thing at a time - I think a gravity wheel should be the easiest thing from amateur builders to recreate, hence my strong interest in gravity in particular. But for bulk energy, i'm thinking a gravity wheel driving a heat pump might be something ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: energy producing experiments
@greendoor,
I'm afraid we'll divert the conversation if we start talking about the magnetic propulsor. I suggest that we postpone that and focus on the unbalanced wheel we're discussing here. What we need more than anything else is to have someone with a lot of practice in making fine mechanical devices instruct us how to construct it at lowest possible friction levels.
I'm afraid we'll divert the conversation if we start talking about the magnetic propulsor. I suggest that we postpone that and focus on the unbalanced wheel we're discussing here. What we need more than anything else is to have someone with a lot of practice in making fine mechanical devices instruct us how to construct it at lowest possible friction levels.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Omnibus - I think you are limiting your options. And as far as a Bessler Wheel is concerned, I think you are very wrong.Omnibus wrote:The wheel we’re talking about has the inherent property (no matter how slow it rotates) to be unbalanced at any of its positions. That’s the basis of it being perpetuum mobile, nothing else, no dynamic effects play a role in creating the said effect. ... Nothing else.
As far as I understand the historical records (which isn't very far) I believe that the first wheel had to be restrained, and therefore probably was constantly overbalanced. The two-way wheels I think needed a bit of a push, so weren't constantly overbalanced.
The way I see it - Bessler found a way to elevate mass higher than it falls. From there, he could simply have mass dropping into a conventional overbalanced wheel and it would turn just like a waterwheel.
What you seem to be proposing is the first thing that people think of when trying to solve the Bessler riddle. Trying to make a wheel that is always overbalanced (without a constant supply of falling mass). I think history has proven this to be futile.
I realised early on that we can multiply torque very easily by simply shifting the fulcrum point OR the CoG for the mass to create a longer lever. I looked into various ways of manipulating levers - but I came back to the same fundamental problem. No matter how clever or complicated we get - the ONLY way to extract energy out of a mass is to allow it to fall. And once the CoG falls, it has to be lifted back up.
It comes back to trading force for height. It all sums to zero. Lockup.
I really think you are right about searching for an external 'reservoir of energy' - but gravity is right there, so why look further?
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.