Rotational Motion

[Patrick]

This is an extract from Bessler wheel theory part 7 on fulcrum points. (Sorry but I need to exclude the photos/diagrams for now.)

Here is an interesting quote.
It is from a lecture by Michael Fowler, a professor at the University of Virginia on Rotational Motion.

"...suppose you and I face each other, standing on a slippery floor. We both hold our hands up at shoulder level, say. Then you hold my right hand with your left hand, and my left hand with your right hand. Then at the same time you begin to push on my right hand and pull on my left hand with the same force. What happens? If the floor is slippery enough, we'll both begin to rotate.
Notice, though, that the two forces you're exerting on me are equal and opposite, so you might think Newton's Laws would predict nothing at all would happen, even though we know better. But, the statement (is) that there will be no change of motion if the forces add up to zero and if the forces act at the same point. Even if the forces don't act at the same point, if they add to zero, the body acted on won't move away - that is to say, its center of mass will stay put. But it will, in general, begin to rotate..."

I believe we can achieve rotational motion in a Besslerian type wheel even when the overall physical activity/kinetic forces/Newtonian forces within the wheel may add up to zero; the reason this is possible is due to the fact that the push and pull forces occurring at the fulcrum points of the central/millstone portion of the wheel force a rotational movement about the axis. These simultaneous push and pull forces are more than enough to overcome the frictional drag of the wheel itself; so although the wheel itself does not move from its resting position; ie: it's center of mass stays put/it stays in the same position on the stand; it does rotate about its' own centre of mass.
In other words, we are 'obeying' the laws of Newton while simultaneously finding a coveted 'loophole' that allows us to achieve our goal.

If you would like to read the original lecture by Folwer, you can find it here:

http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/58 ... otion.html

I think the people that like the 'mathematiks' will find the link interesting. I hope all Bessler enthusiasts are achieving good progress with their designs.

best regards--Patrick

[Jonathan]

Yes, the math was interesting, but so was this:

Before analyzing rotational motion, it's worth considering what patterns of forces cause rotation. For example, suppose you and I face each other, standing on a slippery floor. We both hold our hands up at shoulder level, say. Then you hold my right hand with your left hand, and my left hand with your right hand. Then at the same time you begin to push on my right hand and pull on my left hand with the same force. What happens? If the floor is slippery enough, we'll both begin to rotate.
Notice, though, that the two forces you're exerting on me are equal and opposite, so you might think Newton's Laws would predict nothing at all would happen, even though we know better. But if you look back at the notes on static equilibrium, the statement was that there will be no change of motion if the forces add up to zero and if the forces act at the same point. Even if the forces don't act at the same point, if they add to zero, the body acted on won't move away - that is to say, its center of mass will stay put. But it will, in general, begin to rotate, unless frictional forces come into play to balance the applied forces.

which seems contrary to this(later in the document):

Now comes a crucial point. How do we relate this torque to the external force torque FR? What about all the internal forces-the fact that each part of the wheel feels forces from neighboring parts? How do we take account of this very complicated situation?
The answer is that we don't have to! By Newton's Third Law, all those internal forces are in equal opposite pairs, actions and reactions between neighboring masses. This means that when we sum over all parts of the wheel, we count all these forces, and they all cancel each other in pairs. Therefore the total torque is just that from the external forces.

Regardless, I find that loophole very interesting.

[Nitro]

Aplied force in this manner may = 0 but energy is used to over come the slippery floor.

[Jonathan]

Hey all, I think this could really go somewhere. I don't think I totally understand Nitro's post. The center of the spinner's mass doens't move, so though there are forces, there is no distance they move through, and so there is no energy used up. Unless you mean by the bearing in which case there obviously is, but it is theoretically zero and experimentally pretty small.
Also, do I misunderstand, or does your signature mean that you think our work here is fruitless, and that the only thing we can do is burn things and absorb light from the sun? If so, why do you come here to burst our bubbles? I doubt you'll change anyone's mind. Or do you mean that creation of energy is impossible, and one must find a way to convert gravity or something for a device to work? That is not the impression I got, though I can see how it could be either way.

[jim_mich]

Perpetual motion is impossible,

True 'perpetual motion' in its strictest sense is not possible.

But when a perpetual motion machine is finally developed, it will have as an energy source the same energy that makes the whole universe. The same energy source that produces gravity, the heats the sun, that keeps the planets spinning, etc.

Conversion of energy is the answer

Energy must be converted from a first form into a second form we can use. Such as heat to pressure and sunlight to electricity or gravity to motion.

The problem is gravity is seen as only potential energy and not as continuuos energy. Think of gravity as wind constantly blow down on your head. How would you make a device to convert that energy?

[Patrick]

Hi Jim;
I agree with Nitro's signature also but we cannot think of gravity as a wind. It that were so, a simple horizontal propeller could catch the force of gravity and power whatever we need. Gravity is much more subtle; it is more like a sticky/gluelike force; like a magnet. Gravity is lazy; it does not want to work at all, it just wants to hold things in one place; right smack in the center of itself. We need to exploit the unidirectional stickiness of gravity in our designs. One advantage we have is that we can depend on gravity to always act consistently; it always wants to pull things straight down. Anything that bounces, shifts, wobbles, is off balance, flips over etc...basically anything that is effected unusually by gravity is a potential solution. You only have to trick gravity once and it will be tricked permanently. I think that is why Bessler included a diagram of a 'Jacob's Ladder' in his research diagrams; it represents, in a way, gravity being tricked. Gravity will never learn to act differently than it does, but we humans can always learn to make things work in new and innovative ways.
--Patrick

[jim_mich]

Hi Patrick,

Wind has inertia. When it hits the angled surface of a propeller the wind goes one way, the propeller the other. Action and reaction. But with gravity there is no inertia effect. The ether energy is hitting the individual molecules so there is only an average straight line effect. As you say we need to look at bounces, shifts, wobbles, etc. These are inertia movements. Inertia can be transmitted or transferred through linkages. And mass can be moved by way of leverage between one mass to another mass. I think it is just a matter of the right linkage between two moving or swinging masses.

Gravity moves a mass. That mass moves a second mass through some type of linkage. That second mass redirects the inertia pressure that results to rotate the wheel. It then is moved by gravity. Which moves the first mass. Which redirects the inertia pressure that results to rotate the wheel some more.

Two weights at right angles, never in equalibrium.

[Patrick]

Amen;
Two weights opposed; one lifts the other and vice versa.
But I still must counter; gravity is a pull/force directly related to mass. You are describing gravity the way one might describe photons. 'Ether energy' may be hitting things but then you are not talking about gravity; and to introduce another 'force' that behaves in this way opens the door to innumerable possibilities but does not help us understand gravity nor does it satisfy Occams Razor. But to get back to your post:

I think it is just a matter of the right linkage between two moving or swinging masses.

This must be correct! I wholeheartedly agree. Bessler said it would be good to find a way to lift 4 pounds with 1 pound but even to find a way to lift 1.1 pounds with 1 pound descending an equal distance puts us in business! Now if only we can just find that 'linkage'!
--Patrick

[jim_mich]

Gravity and photons are (almost) the same! Just different forms of the same ether energy. Photons are occilations in ether energy. Gravity is an unequal flow of ether energy caused by the earth blocking that flow. Ether energy flows, radiates, travels (pick your term) in all directions and at all velocities. Matter is formed from standing wave patterns in the ether energy. When matter accelerates it must push against more ether energy in front than in back. Once moving it has the same amount of EE of it's frequency and direction hitting the front as hits the back.

Once you get a good mental picture of EE, it is much easier to picture gravity, inertia, light, mass, etc. Please understand I am still learning to understand EE and don't know everything. But it makes much more sense than just 'gravity is a pull' or 'mass attracts mass'.

[Patrick]

Hi Jim;
That is certainly a different explanation/interpretation of the concepts of photons and gravity yet it is interesting nonetheless.
Perhaps you are moving towards the area of a unified field theory discussion, but that is certainly beyond my area of study/interest at this time. Also, I would not agree with this statement:

Matter is formed from standing wave patterns in the ether energy.

but to argue against it would be an attempt to assail a completely theoretical (ie; impossible to prove or disprove) concept.
My explanation for the creation of matter is from John 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

Also I would think that 'mass attracts mass' or 'gravity is a pull' are sensible/reasonable statements that are at least on a par with statements about ether energy.

best regards --Patrick

[Jonathan]

I think you guys have gotten off track. Though it'd be nice to know why gravity works, I don't think that is as important as knowing how it works, in trying to build a PMM. Thankfully, we know the latter, and now we need a way to apply it, and I think the original post might be going somewhere.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Patrick and Jim,
i like your open discussion, even you have different standpoints.
But with some you are commen and that is essential. If allowed to interrupt your discussion, than have a look to 'well balanced too' .
During moving(swinging), the forces on the lever are not equal any more. Lift a weight on a side, while the other weight is going down, will have different forces as result, so that you can use gravity. It is not a 4 to 1, only 2 to 1, but that is enough to win.

[Jonathan]

Hey Georg, I been meaning to talk to you about that. I don't understand how you incorporate the excenter roller thing in "well balance too" with a lever. Do you replace the spring with lever? place the whole roller on a lever? And I still don't completely understand what it is supposed to do or how it is supposed to do it. What is the spring for? Have you done experiments like this?

[Nitro]

Jim-Mich

I wish to thank you for speaking for me,
I could not have expressed it better.

And you are correct about besslers wheel drawing from a source of enegy.
It is not a ppm.

[Jonathan]

It's been a while since I've seen this thread! I did the following experiments a few months ago, and have been intermittently mulling over it, maybe you guys will be interested? It demonstrates Conservation of Angular Momentum and NewtonÂ’s Third Law:
Red is elastic, blue is thread. When the thread is burned the wheels will move in the indicated ways under the action of the elastic. The simplest is “A”, which doesn’t need further explaination. “B” and “C” are variants of “A”, each having a second small rotor as a counterbalance. Their appropriate small rotors will turn opposite to the medium rotors, but they (and the small counterbalance rotors) will go around with the medium rotor nonetheless. They show that all the parts of a system can turn together, in either direction, without pushing agaisnt the outside world to commence movement. And they can do this because there is technically no change of momentum from before to after the burning of the thread. I think it’s quite interesting, movement without (net) momentum! “D” is a variant of “B” (and if the elastic goes around the pulley the other way, of “C”), which proves that the motion occurs without pressing against anything: note that the large rotor of “D” has no arrows to indicate movement, this is because, when the thread is burned, it stays still while one medium and one small rotor each turn (and both small rotors revolve). If the medium and small rotors had to press on the outside world to turn, then having them attached to the large rotor (with an identical rotor assembly as a counterbalance) would effectively deny them the ability to push on the outside world.