An example of a perpetual invention

[not_me]

This idea is something that fits within Einstein's quote and could work in water.
The air would be used for preventing a vacuum when the weight tries to expand.
By doing so, the weights can become less dense or more dense that water.
It would use a seal similar to that that is used in pumps and automotive use that goes around a shaft.
A single lip seal would be sufficient.
It will allow some water into the air chamber. One aspect of an invention is "who will buy it?".
With this, since it requires an environment like water, aquarium owners would be the market targeted.
This also would help to establish it's costs. If it can not be manufactured cheap enough,
then the market targeted will not find it worth the amount charged.
A retail cost of less than $30 should work.
With the moveable part of the weight, it's weight would need to be sufficient to over come the friction of the seal.
Even though it will rotate slowly, that would be preferred. Other wise it might harm the fish in the aquarium.
And from time to time, the aquarium owner would need to remove water from the air side.
This can be done when they are maintaining their aquarium.

An example of using an understanding of engineering and marketing.
No replies are necessry, just showing an example.
Bye

[jim_mich]

Jim/not_me, it will just sit there and not turn.

It is the same as these:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=84
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/PatentUS3934964.htm

[not_me]

Engineering can be tested. The last time I checked, if something is denser than water, it sinks.
Likewise, if it is less dense it floats.
My only concern would be if the weight that needs to move within the sea. It might be the seal would create to much friction to have a piston that would fit the design.
As such, with this design, it would about be equal with the density of water meaning minimum friction from it's axle when it rotates.
Of course, to actually test the design would require maching one torpedo and see if it can both sink and float within design requirements.
It would be after that point that the actual feasability of such a design could be considered as if it would be worth pursuing any further.

By the way, they use concrete for hulls in sailboats and submarines. They still do what they are designed for.

[getterdone]

Hi guys, I was watching a television show about the Bermuda Triangle a while back. In this documentry they were theorising about gases being released suddenly causing some ships to sink.

I was just wondering if you guys had ever seen a design similar to the one Jim Mich presented that had a method of pumping lots of tiny air bubbles on the side that the bouey sinks and then it would just naturally rise on the other side.

[path_finder]

Dear not_me,
It seems not to be a recent idea.
Some tests have been made since.

[not_me]

path_finder,
here is one way thee design has been modified.
One thing I do find surprising is that since perpetual motion has been proven to be imposible, why is there a forum for it ? And even more interesting, all the people can say is it's been proven not to work ?
That is if an actual idea is considered.
Of course, once an idea is proven, there will be nothing to discuss. What would people say ? I knew it would be something like that ? Most likely.
But by not considering an idea as possible, it keeps them from looking stupid. And that is important when considering something that IS impossible.
You see, with this design that has already been proven to not work, maybe the most intriguing paart is considering the engineering. That is one reason why I posted at the top no replies are necessary. Not one post has mentioned anything specific about engineering. Just statements somebody else already tried it and proved it did not work. Were there idea's built ? Post a link. If not, then they have not been disproven.

[AB Hammer]

Hi guys, I was watching a television show about the Bermuda Triangle a while back. In this documentry they were theorising about gases being released suddenly causing some ships to sink.

I was just wondering if you guys had ever seen a design similar to the one Jim Mich presented that had a method of pumping lots of tiny air bubbles on the side that the bouey sinks and then it would just naturally rise on the other side.

Greetings Getterdone

Here is the link you seek.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... t=buoyancy

[jim_mich]

One thing I do find surprising is that since perpetual motion has been proven to be imposible, why is there a forum for it ? And even more interesting, all the people can say is it's been proven not to work ?

This forum is about Bessler and his wheel. Science and experimental evidence says that perpetual motion based upon gravity turning perpetually due to out-of-balance is impossible because what goes down must be lifted back up for any such wheel to work. Gravity is a conservative force, which means that the gravity force is the same going down as going up the same distance thus the energy going down is the same going up. Most anyone that truly understands this simple fact of engineering and physics will understand why perpetual motion based on gravity alone is impossible. Using hydraulics does not change these facts. Hydraulics is simply a leveraging system.

But then we are confronted with the historical facts of Bessler's wheel. Bessler publicly displayed four wheels and may have build another three wheels. When we analyze the historical evidence we find that from a technical standpoint it would have been almost impossible for Bessler to have stored enough energy inside the wheels to power them for the time that they ran and with the strength that was displayed. And because the axles were out in the open it showed that nothing turned the wheel by way of the axles. The wheels must have been turned by some continuous out-of-balance of force or weight inside the wheel. A number of scientific experts of the time inspected the wheel and found no hint of fraud. Count Karl was an honest intelligent man and was allowed to see the inside of Bessler's last wheel. He said that it was simple and not a fraud.

So this leaves us with a dilemma of who was or is right? I feel that science is right. I also feel the Bessler was right. Bessler even mentions this fact that men of science are right in their understandings while he (Bessler) was also right in his knowledge of a Principle of Perpetual Motion. Thus it seems that there is some way or method whereby a wheel can supply excess energy to keep turning without depending upon gravity to supply the excess energy.

Most members here on the forum search for ways of harnessing gravity, for this is the first place that PM enthusiast look. It was the first place that I looked. It was the first place that Bessler looked. But eventually many come to understand that what goes down must be lifted back upward for any PM wheel to work. The lifting upward requires energy. Thus the required energy must come about from the motion of the weights but not necessarily from the up and down travel of the weights.

Bessler admitted that his wheel contained springs, but that they were not used to windup the wheel.

About the only forces left to work with are inertial momentum and manipulating kinetic energy. There are two ways to transfer energy between moving weights. One is by steady force and the other is by impact. Transferring of steady forces obey the conservation of (kinetic) energy law. Transferring of impact forces obey the conservation of momentum law. Weights moving up and down regardless of the path they follow obey the law of gravity. Weights moving up in down using hydraulics also obey the law of gravity. Springs obey natural conservation of stress laws. From within the natural laws of mechanics and physics must come any excess energy to power any Bessler type wheel.

Or else Bessler was a fraud and pulled off a series of hoaxes. Each one of us is free to make up our own minds and decide what we believe. I try to keep the posting of my opinions to a minimum, since I know that they are contrary to most members belief that it was gravity and out-of-balance of weights that powered Bessler's wheels.

[ovyyus]

About the only forces left to work with are inertial momentum and manipulating kinetic energy...

Thermal solutions can't be discounted. Although, I guess that is 'manipulating kinetic energy'.

[Michael]

Even the transfering of impact forces obey's the conservation of energy law. Newton's cradle is one good example.

[greendoor]

Newtons Cradle is used to prove the Conservation of Momentum - not Conservation of Kinetic Energy. (This IS a law of Conservation of Momentum; there is NO law of Conservation of kinetic Energy).

Newtons Cradle uses highly elastic steel balls, to minimise heat losses. Obviously there is some heat and sound energy lost. But this is so small that Newtons Cradle makes an extremely good example of Conservation of Momentum as being a valid law. Things get interesting when we use dissimilar mass balls ... this is where slow moving heavy balls cause sudden velocity increase when they strike lighter balls.

So this proves COM. We know that 1000 kg moving at 1 m/s has equivalent Momentum to 1 kg moving at 1000 m/s because of this law of Conservation of Momentum.

But does 1000 kg moving at 1 m/s have equivalent Kinetic Energy to 1 kg moving at 1000 m/s?? Obviously NOT.
1000 kg moving at 1 m/s = 0.5*1000*1^2 = 500J
1 kg moving at 1000 m/s = 0.5*1*1000^2 = 500000J

Small difference, huh? We can't write this off as insignificant heat losses ...

So what about Conservation of Kinetic Energy ... oh right, there isn't a law about that ...

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just isn't the same ...

These are just calculations/numbers. They are what they are. It's the assumptions made about them that I have issues with.

Why should we assume that Energy is conservative, when clearly it is at odds with Conservation of Momentum? They can't both be "conserved". That is an assumption. A belief system. An article of faith.

[jim_mich]

greendoor, you are extremely positively absolutely correct.

The conservation of energy concept came about as an attempt to calculate the forces involved with converting heat into energy and energy into heat when steam engines were first being analyzed. In such cases the conservation of energy law is correct.

[Michael]

I shake my head wondering the point of discussing reality with a zealot. Greendoor Newton's cradle does prove the conservation of energy. The machine slows down eventually, because of energy losses. The balls do not swing higher than the amount of energy given to them. Your math is sloppy. A larger ball will get a smaller ball moving faster because of energy transfer. It's really pretty simple. Quit using sloppy math if you have an example give real figures and make sure you can back it up with real world proof.

[ovyyus]

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Er5pI ... q=&f=false