Anyone for Chess?

[DrWhat]

I wonder what John Collins will reveal. Lets hope all my frustration and anticipation is not all in vain!

[Tarsier79]

Even though I hope he has a runner, the odds are against him. Regardless of how successful his build is, I look forward to seeing his published work. It might set off a light globe or two.

[Ian G]

Fletcher:

Assumption 2
the laws of thermodynamics are man made laws, in other words if you can prove different then do so.

it is this law that is holding back poeple from working on PM

fortunatly it does'nt stop the likes of the members of this site

[jim_mich]

Thermodynamic laws involve conversion of thermal heat to dynamic motion and dynamic motion to thermal heat. Thermodynamic laws are not directly relevant to machines involving only dynamic motion with no conversion between heat and motion.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your comments guys.

The laws of thermodynamics are predicated on observation & measurement, predominantly of mechanical systems but extend to all known dynamic systems - super conductors come to mind where the medium is super cooled until there is no electrical resistance & therefore electrons flow with no energy loss - some tout that if a super conductor could be found at ambient temperature then that would be evidence of breaking the laws of thermodynamics by having movement without frictional heat loss, but as yet no known medium has been found that can do this - all other types of super conductors need to maintain a cold temperature to have zero resistance & that of course requires energy into the system - I would guess that the energy to keep it cool is greater than the resistance losses at room temperature but it could theoretically approach 1 : 1.

But I digress - mechanical systems that have motion must have frictional heat losses - movement in a near vacuum would still have heat losses whether that be Cf's pulling on a bearing or gravity causing torque around a bearing - as long as physical parts interact & have a friction coefficient then there will be heat losses, albeit small - movement in air has these losses plus frictional heat loss in the form of air drag - either way IMO it is impossible to have dynamic motion without heat loss which means that the system will be over time depleted of energy in a completely closed & isolated system.

So where does that leave us ? - well, IMO it means that the laws of thermodynamics are incommutable as even super cooled superconductors need energy into the system to keep temperatures cool i.e. extract heat from the system that would otherwise warm to ambient over time & build resistance, & mechanical systems always have some heat losses depleting the energy system.

As always, it is up to practice to live up to theory & if motion can be created that doesn't have losses to heat thru frictional contact which depletes the system then that has to be proven by experimentation before the laws of thermodynamics can be set aside in certain circumstances [albeit very important ones].

In your case jim the math seems to offer hope that Ke quotient can be manually changed by induced motion out & back again - unless you are well advanced with a physical model to prove the usefulness then my thoughts are that the laws of thermodynamics will hold true & the math advantage will evaporate into an apparition seen as the penalty/cost of motion.

Ian .. theories become laws become axioms, until proven otherwise by physical example & exception - this has always been so in the fields of science, at which time new theories are put forward & laws amended or rewritten etc - whilst I appreciate that most here at Besslerwheel.com would look to rewrite those laws I think it more likely that it is wishful thinking rather than substance - but when faced with few leads & alternatives any straw will be grasped at.

For myself I prefer to apply ockham's razor - IMO, it is likely that the solution to a gravity engine will be contained within the known laws of science based in the tenants I mentioned above as assumptions, including the laws of thermodynamics - you & jim & anybody else are of course free to think otherwise & try & prove it - I'd like you to be right but my instinct says otherwise.

P.S. Steorn's supposedly OU orbo's would be strong evidence of breaking the laws of thermodynamics, if they worked as claimed - but we know there are heat & other losses simply because there is motion.

[Ray Duku]

For myself I prefer to apply ockham's razor - IMO, it is likely that the solution to a gravity engine will be contained within the known laws of science based in the tenants I mentioned above as assumptions, including the laws of thermodynamics - you & jim & anybody else are of course free to think otherwise & try & prove it - I'd like you to be right but my instinct says otherwise.

Absolutely correct, no need to break any laws.

[Grimer]

+1

[jim_mich]

As you read the following quotes, please note that in each case the author talks about heat engines. The Thermodynamic Laws originated from the study of heat engines. These laws have been expanded until now it is assumed that they cover all dynamic situations. But such is not the case. Thermodynamic Laws only cover thermodynamic processes involving conversions between heat and work. Except for friction, any machine that works upon a principle devoid of heat transfer is not bound by these thermodynamic laws, though they may well be bound by other physics laws.
From physics.Suite101.com - The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

There are three laws of thermodynamics. They originated in the early days of the industrial revolution. Engineers and physicists studied heat engines, engines that use heat energy to perform work, to improve their efficiency.

The laws of thermodynamics place fundamental limits on the efficiencies of heat engines. Good thermodynamic engineering can in principle produce heat engines that perform near these limits. However even the very best engineers cannot design engines that exceed these limits without violating fundamental physical laws.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy input for a heat engine equals the work output plus the change in internal heat energy of the system. This internal heat energy is the waste heat energy from whatever process operates the engine. If the internal heat energy does not change, then the energy going into a heat engine, or other system, equals the useful work output. In this case the efficiency of the engine is 100%. The first law allows an engine with 100% efficiency, but the second law of thermodynamics does not.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Efficiency

One statement of the second law of thermodynamics is that the efficiency of any heat engine or other thermodynamic process is always less that 100%. There will always be some type of friction or other inefficiency that will generate waste heat. The useful work that a heat engine can perform will therefore always be less than the energy put into the system. Engines must be cooled, as a radiator cools a car engine, because they generate waste heat.

Versions of the Law

There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, but all are equivalent in the sense that each form of the second law logically implies every other form.[1] Thus, the theorems of thermodynamics can be proved using any form of the second law and third law.

The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is as follows:

In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.

Thus, while a system can go through some physical process that decreases its own entropy, the entropy of the universe (which includes the system and its surroundings) must increase overall. (An exception to this rule is a reversible or "isentropic" process, such as frictionless adiabatic compression.) Processes that decrease the total entropy of the universe are impossible. If a system is at equilibrium, by definition no spontaneous processes occur, and therefore the system is at maximum entropy.

A second formulation, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

Note that it is HEAT that cannot flow from a colder source to a warmer source. If heat could be made to flow from a colder source to a warmer source (like with a Maxwell's Demon) then we would have the makings of perpetual motion.

Pequaide demonstrates that kinetic energy (momentum) can flow from an object with less kinetic energy (a wheel) to an object with greater kinetic energy (a weight already in motion moved by CF to a faster motion) which would be contrary to the Second Law if the kinetic energy transfer involved heat instead of motion. This proves that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to situations where heat is not involved. Thermodynamic laws only apply to situations where heat converts to motion and motion converts to heat.

The laws of physics cover motion and energy. Newtonian physics law concerns motion. An object at rest remains at rest while an object in motion remains in motion. Changes of motion depend upon how the change is produced. The change of motion can involve simple momentum or it can involve impact. The formulas involved are different. Momentum is simple addition. Impact involves the square of the velocity. If we speed up a weight using momentum transfer and then slow down a weight using impact transfer we realize a doubling of energy. The mechanism needed to accomplish this is very simple. Bessler almost gives away the method. But most are blinded by trying to force gravity into powering their wheels. Forget gravity. The power comes from manipulating momentum and inertial kinetic energy. CF is but a method for transferring momentum from a slower moving object to a faster moving object, which would break the second law of thermodynamics if the kinetic energy involved were heat instead of motion.

Enough for now!

[AB Hammer]

I may be way off line here but, when I think of Chess and gravity wheels I tend to think about this for some reason. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3MylWnK-Iw

[Ian G]

Jim:

You must have a working wheel as you know all the clues

If you don't please tell us why you think you haven't been so blessed

[jim_mich]

From the BesslerWiki titled "Working Wheel"

A working wheel would be a perpetual motion wheel that once set in motion continues to rotate while outputting usable rotational torque until physically stopped or the components wear out.

A perpetual motion wheel that is only a concept on paper or in a computer simulation is not a working wheel.

Life gets in the way of building. Time with my family comes first. Building a Bessler wheel is low priority. Yes, I strongly believe I have a concept and plans for a working wheel. I understand why it would work. I understand where it gets its extra energy (not from gravity). A proof of principle physical wheel is not expensive and not complex. Ralph, with his excellent workshop could probably build it from my drawings in less than two days, maybe even in one day. It would probably take me about three or four full days to build it, if I had the time free to work on it. But other things take priority.

[ovyyus]

Jim, you haven't had three or four days to spare in over three years in order to prove your theory? I guess fundamental scientific breakthrough can wait.

Sorry, can't talk atm... have to help carry the wifes shopping :D

[Ian G]

Thanks Jim I feel the same way but it's not shopping I have to carry.

[rlortie]

Jim_mich Wrote;

Ralph, with his excellent workshop could probably build it from my drawings in less than two days, maybe even in one day.

There is one obvious way to prove or disprove this statement.

True we have had our provocative debates leading to personal rhetoric, but there is absolutely no disagreement in your multi-step strategy for patenting. I put my emphasis on item 'J', I believe that once patented you need to keep investing in R & D to say ahead of the competition.

One large company (3M-Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing) actually spends more in research than the overhead to manage/produce their earning profits. This concept has brought us everything from scotch tape to 'sticky notes'. I would say that is diversified for a company that started with abrasive and core drilling equipment.

Ralph

A] First get something that works!!!

B] Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity.

C] Define the principle or the reason why it works!

D] Design a simple cheap working POP (proof of principle) sample model.

E] (omitted by mistake)

F] Build as many of these models as money/time/reasoning suggest.

G] Plan Ad campaign, including literature, web space, documentation, etc.

H] Write patent applications for most major countries.

I] Prepare a list of names, addresses of who is to receive what.

J] Always continue research into increasing power output and alternate designs.

K] Load up on liability and life insurance.

L] When all is prepared, file patents, upload web site, mail plans, ship models, etc. Hit the media hard! Make a sensation! Be on the evening news worldwide.