That's the point Tom - no one says Kinetic Energy is conserved - the law relates to TOTAL Energy as has been pointed out to greendoor & pequaide numerous times.
Secondly, as I tried to show by way of modeled collisions in pequaide's thread that when two identical objects [same volume, material & mass] interact in a straight line then you can get a complete transference of momentum from one to the other - that depends on elasticity factors & an ordinary Newton's cradle [identical masses] shows this quite well - where it doesn't hold up is the example greendoor uses of dissimilar masses e.g. a larger mass [to use jim_mich's numeric example] 4kgs traveling horizontally at 3 m/s impacts a stationary mass of 2 kgs - total momentum is conserved & this means that the larger mass will still have a residual velocity after impact & the smaller stationary item will now have a new velocity in the same direction - but it will not be 6 m/s.
As soon as you try to apply leverage principles to completely transfer the momentum you can't do it [unless they are identical] - well, that's my understanding anyway - perhaps if the elasticity factors were 'just right' you might get a bounce back of the larger mass that would effectively make the larger mass stationary after impact ?
Some think that impulse or impact can assure a complete momentum transfer from one object to another [dissimilar masses, in a straight line] but I don't believe I've seen any modeling or practical experiments to support that contention - I could be wrong & they do exist, in which case could someone put up a link to them ?
Simulation Software - Any good?
Moderator: scott
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
Hi Fletcher, Thanks. Yes, this is why I was a bit, you know, taken aback by some of the observations in the thread. I guess I didn't read thoroughly enough to see you and people had already taken issue with some of the assertions. I thought the following statement would be pretty odd too (though I guess Jim just meant to flesh out what greendoor said?):
Even assuming a perfectly elastic collision between the weights, there's no "gain of kinetic energy", and it isn't true that "energy goes up"--except in the sense that -ONE- of the two weights gains speed, but obviously conservation of energy is not talking about conservation of kinetic energy within each arbitrary isolated -subpart- pf a system. The example is just not controversial at all from a humdrum physics point of view. It's no different from any of the standard physics experiments with those balls. If I'm just rehashing an old discussion on this forum, or misunderstanding what people mean to say, I apologize.Yes, it's true that energy goes up. For instance, start with a 4 kg weight moving at a speed of 3. When its total momentum is transferred to a 2 kg weight then the 2 kg weight will be moving at a speed of 6. In the first instance the KE would be 1/2 × 4 × 3^2 = 18. In the second instance the KE would be 1/2 × 2 × 6^2 = 36. Thus there there is a gain of kinetic energy while momentum is conserved.
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
No, you're not the one who doesn't understand - people here are trying really hard to find a way to totally transfer momentum from dissimilar masses to another outside the normal leverage continuum - that means some pretty inventive ideas but just about all involve angular momentum in some way - Kinetic Energy is recognized by the physicists & mathematicians a being a measure of an object in motion's ability to do work [i.e. force x distance *in the direction of the force*] so by changing the Ke component of the total energy equation they hope to do more work, or excess work, over & above system losses & having self sustaining rotation - the trouble is whilst individual isolated components Ke quotient can be increased there never appears enough momentum in the overall system to reset [or attain original Pe levels] making them one-shot wonders, where Pe is lost from the system [well, converted into Ke really], IMO.
Edit : Potential Energy [Pe] being energy of position which can be measured in joules same as Ke & work done.
Edit : Potential Energy [Pe] being energy of position which can be measured in joules same as Ke & work done.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
Thanks for your post Fletcher. I never understood how they hope to transfer all of the momentum from one mass to another.
I view momentum as useful for predicting the speed AND direction after a collision as you described.
I may be totally off base here, but The way I visualize it, if you stop a mass with a spring, you are taking the kinetic energy of the mass and converting it to potential energy in the spring.
If you then take the potential energy of the spring and accelerate a different mass, in a perfect, frictionless system, wouldn't you would be conserving energy?
So the example becomes:
4kg mass moving at 3 m/s has KE of 1/2 x 4 x 3^2 = 18J. When the total energy is transferred to a 2 kg mass, then the 2 kg mass
will be moving at a speed of (18J = 1/2 * 2 * v^2) , v = 4.24 m/s
Initial momentum of the 4 kg mass = 12 kg m/s
final momentum of the 2 kg mass = 8.25 kg m/s
thus there is a loss of momentum while energy is conserved.
Instead of conserving momentum and claiming energy gain, I would conserve energy and claim momentum loss.
... and the simulation software has to figure out an answer.
I view momentum as useful for predicting the speed AND direction after a collision as you described.
I may be totally off base here, but The way I visualize it, if you stop a mass with a spring, you are taking the kinetic energy of the mass and converting it to potential energy in the spring.
If you then take the potential energy of the spring and accelerate a different mass, in a perfect, frictionless system, wouldn't you would be conserving energy?
So the example becomes:
4kg mass moving at 3 m/s has KE of 1/2 x 4 x 3^2 = 18J. When the total energy is transferred to a 2 kg mass, then the 2 kg mass
will be moving at a speed of (18J = 1/2 * 2 * v^2) , v = 4.24 m/s
Initial momentum of the 4 kg mass = 12 kg m/s
final momentum of the 2 kg mass = 8.25 kg m/s
thus there is a loss of momentum while energy is conserved.
Instead of conserving momentum and claiming energy gain, I would conserve energy and claim momentum loss.
... and the simulation software has to figure out an answer.
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
Technically joules [J] = Newton meters [Nm] & 1N = 1kg x acceleration due to gravity [g] - approx ~ 1 kg = 10 N's, so 1 kg raised 1 meter would have 10 Joules of Pe added to it's original Energy of Position [Pe].
N.B. Joules pe second [J/s] is a measure of the rate of doing work i.e. power, & is called Watts [or kW's] - 1 horsepower = 745.7 watts.
"The point is that after collision the total mechanical energy will not be the same as before; energy will be dissipated, it will go into the air in the form of heat, sound, etc; the total energy of the universe will not be changed by the collision - but that of the balls will be !"
"So momentum is a more permanent property than energy, the latter is often wasted & sometimes it is unfortunate that in order to give a body momentum we must also give it energy."
N.B. sometimes it pays to turn the thinking around to see it more clearly i.e. change the context - "a body is said to have energy if it has the ability to do work, & the amount of energy reckoned by the amount of work it can do - the units of energy will therefore be the same as those of work - the amount of work a body can do should be the same as the amount that has been done on it, that is to say, it should be able to give back what it has been given - unfortunately it usually cannot do so" [because of energy dissipation etc].
Reference material : AC Kermode
For those who think I just like to parrot textbooks think about what I wrote a few posts up before you write them or me off.
N.B. Joules pe second [J/s] is a measure of the rate of doing work i.e. power, & is called Watts [or kW's] - 1 horsepower = 745.7 watts.
"The point is that after collision the total mechanical energy will not be the same as before; energy will be dissipated, it will go into the air in the form of heat, sound, etc; the total energy of the universe will not be changed by the collision - but that of the balls will be !"
"So momentum is a more permanent property than energy, the latter is often wasted & sometimes it is unfortunate that in order to give a body momentum we must also give it energy."
N.B. sometimes it pays to turn the thinking around to see it more clearly i.e. change the context - "a body is said to have energy if it has the ability to do work, & the amount of energy reckoned by the amount of work it can do - the units of energy will therefore be the same as those of work - the amount of work a body can do should be the same as the amount that has been done on it, that is to say, it should be able to give back what it has been given - unfortunately it usually cannot do so" [because of energy dissipation etc].
Reference material : AC Kermode
For those who think I just like to parrot textbooks think about what I wrote a few posts up before you write them or me off.
Wubbly - that's basically the point I wished to make. Momentum does not equal Kinetic Energy (self evident) anymore than the equation MV can equal the equation 0.5MV^2.Instead of conserving momentum and claiming energy gain, I would conserve energy and claim momentum loss. ... and the simulation software has to figure out an answer.
Therefore - software modeling must always make a choice: Momentum or Kinetic Energy? It seems to me that not everyone is fully aware that Kinetic Energy is not a conserved quantity - so full marks for everyone who already understands this.
As people have pointed out - any collision will always be a lossy transformation. Energy will be lost, in the form of heat, sound, etc. This conveniently covers up any discrepancy between the Energy equation and the Momentum equation. We can just 'write off' any discrepancy to an unknown amount of other energy. But from a software modeling point of view - how accurately do you think the software models the heat & sound energy losses? I would think they probably don't acknowledge them at all ...
For the majority of engineering applications, I have no doubt that software modeling is excellent. But we are looking to re-discover a baffling pardox that defys conventional wisdom. All I am saying is that we are VERY unlikely to ever discover this within the constructs of a simplistic virtual world that behaves according to the conventional mathematical model.
FWIW - I hope that I have always made it clear that I always view an Impact transfer of momentum as being a lossy transformation. As much as I believe Impact is a necessary step in the Bessler principle - I don't believe it is a source of energy, far from it.
My comment about 'energy going up' was poorly worded. I was trying to point out the differences between MV and 0.5MV^2. Modeling is about theoretical equations that hopefully model real life.
IF a theoretical transfer of momentum has been achieved, the law of Conservation of Momentum requires that MV be conserved.
Losses have to be accounted for:agreed. But seriously, in a classic Newtons Cradle, are heat & sound such huge factors? Those balls can knock backwards & forwards for quite some time without getting too hot. Sound is evident, but in my experience it takes very little energy to make some very loud sounds. In the scheme of things, I think losses in an impact system can be relatively minimal, and we are looking (elsewhere) for big Coefficients of Performance that would make small losses inconsequential.
Say we took the Momentum of a 100 kg mass moving at 10 m/s and stored all that energy in a spring. Assuming a theoretically perfect spring, we have stored 1000 kg*m/s of momentum. Now what happens if we use that spring to launch different masses? (In a perfect textbook imaginary world).
If we launch the original 100 kg mass, it should take off at 10 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1 kg mass, it should take off at 1000 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1000 kg mass, it should take off at 1 m/s - total momentum 1000
This demonstrates conservation of momentum. But what about Kinetic Energy in each of these cases? Very obviously the Energy calculates very differently for each of these. So how do you explain the discrepancy? Heat? Sound? Aren't we just fooling ourselfs with mathematical tricks?
Or should we write off the law of Conservation of Momentum as a falsehood?
I would expect a good experiment could lay this to rest. But should a software model (especially one known to be full of bugs and anomolies) be trusted to solve this sort of thing?
My comment about 'energy going up' was poorly worded. I was trying to point out the differences between MV and 0.5MV^2. Modeling is about theoretical equations that hopefully model real life.
IF a theoretical transfer of momentum has been achieved, the law of Conservation of Momentum requires that MV be conserved.
Losses have to be accounted for:agreed. But seriously, in a classic Newtons Cradle, are heat & sound such huge factors? Those balls can knock backwards & forwards for quite some time without getting too hot. Sound is evident, but in my experience it takes very little energy to make some very loud sounds. In the scheme of things, I think losses in an impact system can be relatively minimal, and we are looking (elsewhere) for big Coefficients of Performance that would make small losses inconsequential.
Say we took the Momentum of a 100 kg mass moving at 10 m/s and stored all that energy in a spring. Assuming a theoretically perfect spring, we have stored 1000 kg*m/s of momentum. Now what happens if we use that spring to launch different masses? (In a perfect textbook imaginary world).
If we launch the original 100 kg mass, it should take off at 10 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1 kg mass, it should take off at 1000 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1000 kg mass, it should take off at 1 m/s - total momentum 1000
This demonstrates conservation of momentum. But what about Kinetic Energy in each of these cases? Very obviously the Energy calculates very differently for each of these. So how do you explain the discrepancy? Heat? Sound? Aren't we just fooling ourselfs with mathematical tricks?
Or should we write off the law of Conservation of Momentum as a falsehood?
I would expect a good experiment could lay this to rest. But should a software model (especially one known to be full of bugs and anomolies) be trusted to solve this sort of thing?
Re: re: Simulation Software - Any good?
Not sure who "some" are, but it's not a point i've ever tried to argue. There is always equal & opposite reaction in an impact Rebound is a major practical problem with some basic designs. But there are some similar points that I think warrant further thought:Fletcher wrote:Some think that impulse or impact can assure a complete momentum transfer from one object to another [dissimilar masses, in a straight line] but I don't believe I've seen any modeling or practical experiments to support that contention - I could be wrong & they do exist, in which case could someone put up a link to them ?
Pequaide champions the use of yo-yo de-spin to transfer momentum from a heavy mass to a lighter mass - thus creating a big increase in velocity. I have not tried this, but Pequaide states that he is able to bring the heavy mass to a complete stop, thereby demonstrating that he has transfered all momentum to the lighter mass with no evidence of rebound. This demonstrates the creation of Energy in the lab. Personally - i'm not so sure. I think it demonstrates conservation of momentum (Pequaide is careful to use designs that concentrate the mass in the rim, to approximate linear Newtonian momentum rather than Angular Momentum). Ultimately - his experimental results should override whatever mathematical tricks are used to describe what is going on.
Myself, I believe that Momentum MV can explain actions involving Mass moving with Velocity. The energy equations are just another derived way of looking at the same thing. You can't deny the M and V. And the energy equations are a useful book-keeping method for comparing with - for example - freefalling mass accelerating from 0. But that's a special case - as not all falling mass is accelerating at the same rate, depending on how the force may be diverted and stored. But mass can't travel at Velocity Squared, or a fraction thereof - so Kinetic Energy must be seen as an abstraction that doesn't always model reality (in my view).
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
PS - I admit I don't know what i'm talking about. But I don't just want to accept the opinions of academics who only think they know what they are talking about based on what they have been told to accept. Science is littered with obsolete theories, failed mathematical models and falsified experimental results. If somebody (even a luntatic) smells a rat, that's good enough for me to question a theory and try to see what seems to be true. A true scientist should never be scared to let every detail of a theory be scrutinised by anyone.
Google "energy misdefined" for an interesting website that has provoked some very interesting discussion around the net.
There are many things I don't know yet. For example - in Newtons Cradle, we can find simulations on the net that model the behaviour. They tend to show the input and output velocity, depending on masses involved. What is missing for me is the rate of acceleration: the balls that flys off obviously has to start from zero ... and yet the Impulse can only last as long as the balls are in contact ... so the end velocity must be achieved very quickly ... interesting ...
In the case of a coiled up spring, will this behave similar to balls in Newtons Cradle? I'm assuming there are big similarities ... basically this is elastic collision ... stressed steel ... an Impulse causing Force X Time (i.e. Momentum) ...
I don't know ... still looking for the best answers ...
Google "energy misdefined" for an interesting website that has provoked some very interesting discussion around the net.
There are many things I don't know yet. For example - in Newtons Cradle, we can find simulations on the net that model the behaviour. They tend to show the input and output velocity, depending on masses involved. What is missing for me is the rate of acceleration: the balls that flys off obviously has to start from zero ... and yet the Impulse can only last as long as the balls are in contact ... so the end velocity must be achieved very quickly ... interesting ...
In the case of a coiled up spring, will this behave similar to balls in Newtons Cradle? I'm assuming there are big similarities ... basically this is elastic collision ... stressed steel ... an Impulse causing Force X Time (i.e. Momentum) ...
I don't know ... still looking for the best answers ...
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
Conceptually, I still don't understand how a spring can store momentum. In my mind, a spring stores energy. If I look in a physics book, when it talks about springs, it refers to work and energy, but conveniently leaves out momentum.
This links talks about potential energy.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u5l1b.html
rotate it 90 degrees, and release it on mass2, and I violated conservation of momentum.
Momentum is mass x velocity.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
If I violate the direction component of Momentum, did I conserve momentum?
This links talks about potential energy.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u5l1b.html
I can use this same example and violate conservation of momentum. If I do this experiment in a horizontal plane, I can take the cocked spring,Say we took the Momentum of a 100 kg mass moving at 10 m/s and stored all that energy in a spring. Assuming a theoretically perfect spring, we have stored 1000 kg*m/s of momentum. Now what happens if we use that spring to launch different masses? (In a perfect textbook imaginary world).
If we launch the original 100 kg mass, it should take off at 10 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1 kg mass, it should take off at 1000 m/s - total momentum 1000
If we launch a 1000 kg mass, it should take off at 1 m/s - total momentum 1000
This demonstrates conservation of momentum.
rotate it 90 degrees, and release it on mass2, and I violated conservation of momentum.
Momentum is mass x velocity.
Velocity is speed AND direction.
If I violate the direction component of Momentum, did I conserve momentum?
That's because you are steeped in conventional physics thinking. Bessler wasn't - the concept of energy was still being debated, and the assumptions had not become consensus reality.Conceptually, I still don't understand how a spring can store momentum. In my mind, a spring stores energy. If I look in a physics book, when it talks about springs, it refers to work and energy, but conveniently leaves out momentum.
Trying to get back to basic principles: if we have an object in motion, it has mass and it has velocity. These are real measurable quantities. We can take a moving object and bring it's velocity to zero (in our chosen reference frame), and in doing that we can create a force that can strain an object and create stress. That stress can be reversed, to create a force which accelerates the object and restores the velocity (less losses). Examples would be collisions or springs. Other methods of storing motion would be pendulums or flywheels.
So what is this "thing" that is being stored? The measurable quantities are Mass and Velocity. The moving object going in has Mass & Velocity, and the moving object coming out has Mass & Velocity. While we can talk about Velocity Squared as a mathematical abstraction, it doesn't represent a real measurable quantity.
It seems to me that experimental evidence from Newtons Cradle and ballistic experiments suggest that Momentum (the product of Mass & Velocity) is conserved. Why should we view this 'thing' that is being stored as anything other than Momentum?
Certainly - we can perform the equation and describe M & V in terms of 0.5MV^2. Nobody is denying that the mathematics can't be used. But is this really the 'thing' that is being stored? And since MV and 0.5MV^2 are obviously different values - if one is conserved, the other clearly cannot be conserved.
On whose authority, and based on whose experiments, do we automatically assume that energy is conserved in a spring or collision? Isn't it a basic axiom of classical physics that momentum is conserved?
It seems to me that the actual physical measurable 'thing' that is stored in a spring is Strain. Strain yeilds Stress, Stress yields Force, Force yeilds Acceleration, Acceleration yields Velocity ...
So I think that neither Energy nor Momentum are stored in a spring, in the true sense. I guess we could call it Potential Energy ... but I have issues with the validity of Potential Energy as a 'thing'. Obviously it exists as a concept - as an 'accounting tool'. But is it a real "physical" thing - I don't think so.
In this example of a coiled up spring - what really does happen when we accelerate different sized masses? In actual experiments, do we find that MV is conserved, or 0.5MV^2? And if MV is not conserved, what gives with the law of conservation of Momentum? AFAIK it's generally agreed that kinetic energy is not conserved, but the consensus opinion is that Total energy is conserved. But i'm not interested in consensus opinion if it turns out that Bessler found an exception to this opinion ...
Kinetic energy is energy that results from one object meeting another object. The objects in question DO NOT have or store KE. The KE that we measure and quantify comes about only due to the MOTION of one object relative to another object. Without some outside frame of reference we don't know which object is moving and which is stationary or if both objects are moving. The kinetic energy of a moving object comes from the fabric of space. It comes from those forces in our universe that are the cause of inertial momentum. It comes about when an object is forced to change speed. Thus we should never say that an object has KE. What should be said is that the object has KE relative to a particular frame of reference in which the speed of the object is measured. But of course 'kinetic' means motion and thus kinetic energy is energy of motion. And all motion is relative. And herein lay the secret to perpetual motion, IMO.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: Simulation Software - Any good?
I'm sorry for being obtuse, but I still don't understand how a spring can capture momentum.
Didn't someone once do an experiment where they stopped a moving mass with clay?
They then doubled the speed of the mass (hence doubling momentum) and stopped it again with clay.
They then compared the indentations in the clay for the different speeds.
These indentations, where the mass met the clay, were real and measurable.
Wasn't the indentation for speed x 2 more than twice the indentation for speed x 1?
Instead of stopping the mass with clay, stop it with a spring.
For case speed x 2, the spring will capture more than twice the value of case speed x 1.
So how can the 'thing' you captured be momentum?
Didn't someone once do an experiment where they stopped a moving mass with clay?
They then doubled the speed of the mass (hence doubling momentum) and stopped it again with clay.
They then compared the indentations in the clay for the different speeds.
These indentations, where the mass met the clay, were real and measurable.
Wasn't the indentation for speed x 2 more than twice the indentation for speed x 1?
Instead of stopping the mass with clay, stop it with a spring.
For case speed x 2, the spring will capture more than twice the value of case speed x 1.
So how can the 'thing' you captured be momentum?
When the balls in Newtons Cradle transfer momentum between themselves, the effect must be fairly similar to that of a spring. The elastic nature of the balls compressing and then expanding would appear to me to be effectively a very short spring.
Newtons Cradle definitatively proves the Conservation of Momentum. Not the Conservation of Kinetic Energy - because such a law does not exist.
I do not know if there is a recognised experiment with springs that proves whether Momentum or Energy is conserved - but why should it be any different?
The issue of measuring penetration of falling masses into clay is an interesting one. There are so many variables in such a test. The Viscosity and fluid characteristics of clay for a start - is clay a Newtonian Fluid? I wouldn't think so - my guess is it is Thixotropic, which would really skew any results. The shape of the penetrating object would also be a huge factor - was it a cone, or a needle, or blunt? Very obviously, the depth of penetration and force required would vary with the shape ...
From what I understand, there is a huge fudge factor in any of the classic experiments that allegedly proved that 0.5MV^2 is the quantity of mass in motion rather than MV.
Remember - it took hundreds of years for the concept of energy to be contrived and accepted as consensus reality. It is not intuitive, straightforward nor easily proved. (The maths model is easily proved in the mathematical domain - but does that model reality at all times??) Sometimes science is corrupted by weak ideas that just get accepted out of frustration, greed, or outright bullshit.
Obviously there are elements of the energy theory that work well enough to serve industry and the energy providers. It seems that our physics teaching conveniently side-steps dealing with certain questions and demands that we accept certain 'axioms' as being true without anybody really knowing exactly whether they are true or not. Bessler's wheel is the smoking gun that suggests there maybe we don't know everything that we need to know.
This is in the context of whether software simulation is any good for finding a Bessler wheel solution ... I just don't think it is. It may well miss something in reality that just isn't covered by the conventional mathematical model.
If you haven't done so already - google "energy misdefined" and read what that guy is on about. He presents a very good case.
Newtons Cradle definitatively proves the Conservation of Momentum. Not the Conservation of Kinetic Energy - because such a law does not exist.
I do not know if there is a recognised experiment with springs that proves whether Momentum or Energy is conserved - but why should it be any different?
The issue of measuring penetration of falling masses into clay is an interesting one. There are so many variables in such a test. The Viscosity and fluid characteristics of clay for a start - is clay a Newtonian Fluid? I wouldn't think so - my guess is it is Thixotropic, which would really skew any results. The shape of the penetrating object would also be a huge factor - was it a cone, or a needle, or blunt? Very obviously, the depth of penetration and force required would vary with the shape ...
From what I understand, there is a huge fudge factor in any of the classic experiments that allegedly proved that 0.5MV^2 is the quantity of mass in motion rather than MV.
Remember - it took hundreds of years for the concept of energy to be contrived and accepted as consensus reality. It is not intuitive, straightforward nor easily proved. (The maths model is easily proved in the mathematical domain - but does that model reality at all times??) Sometimes science is corrupted by weak ideas that just get accepted out of frustration, greed, or outright bullshit.
Obviously there are elements of the energy theory that work well enough to serve industry and the energy providers. It seems that our physics teaching conveniently side-steps dealing with certain questions and demands that we accept certain 'axioms' as being true without anybody really knowing exactly whether they are true or not. Bessler's wheel is the smoking gun that suggests there maybe we don't know everything that we need to know.
This is in the context of whether software simulation is any good for finding a Bessler wheel solution ... I just don't think it is. It may well miss something in reality that just isn't covered by the conventional mathematical model.
If you haven't done so already - google "energy misdefined" and read what that guy is on about. He presents a very good case.
And why should any of this matter? What relevance is this to building a running Bessler wheel? Well Gravesande (who inspected the Bessler wheel personally) was convinced that classic Newtonian laws based on Momentum showed an opportunity for gravity to power a wheel. But if the (then emerging) idea that the quantity of motion is actually proportional to Velocity Squared, then the maths does not support any opportunity. I can see this too, and that's why I believe gravity power is possible.
Then - as it has for centuries - the very concept of Energy excludes the notion of perpetual motion being possible. But have we been duped? I seriously think there is the possibility we have been derailed.
I'm working on an experiment that should prove that momentum is not as worth-less as we have been made to believe. (Or, specifically, that slow/heavy momentum can be transformed into light/fast momentum - effectively 'creating energy' on paper by virtue of the maths required velocity to be squared ...
But ultimately - stuff the maths. I expect to see the fall of a small mass create enough "whatever" to raise it back up again, and then some ...
Then - as it has for centuries - the very concept of Energy excludes the notion of perpetual motion being possible. But have we been duped? I seriously think there is the possibility we have been derailed.
I'm working on an experiment that should prove that momentum is not as worth-less as we have been made to believe. (Or, specifically, that slow/heavy momentum can be transformed into light/fast momentum - effectively 'creating energy' on paper by virtue of the maths required velocity to be squared ...
But ultimately - stuff the maths. I expect to see the fall of a small mass create enough "whatever" to raise it back up again, and then some ...