Rotational Motion

[Patrick]

Interesting concept Jonathan,
I don't know where you get the time to post so many various ideas. You are definitely a full-time Bessler fanatic!

[Jonathan]

Well thank you, but I think you're mistaken, I can't remember posting any PMM ideas in months. I've barely been thinking about how to do it: I've spent a lot of my recent time thinking about how Bessler could have been a fraud, which culminated in that pneumatic paper.

[jim_mich]

Very interesting Jonathan! The elastic could be replaced with electric motors but then the wires interfere with the results, so I like your elastic method. I would be interested in knowing what might happen if 'A' were attached to the rim of the large rotor in 'D'? Hmmm... what would the expected results be? If gravity is an imbalance of ether energy flow then as the two wheels accelerate they will vertically impact more EE on the far apart edges of the wheels than is impacted on the near edges. This should cause the two-wheel assembly to act like it is getting heavier. If my idea of EE is wrong and gravity is a conservative force then would these wheels still act the same? Is this a possible test to prove my EE ideas and prove that gravity is a non-conservative force? I need to think on this.

P.S. What word or words can be used to denote the opposite of conservative?

[Fletcher]

Well thank you, but I think you're mistaken, I can't remember posting any PMM ideas in months. I've barely been thinking about how to do it: I've spent a lot of my recent time thinking about how Bessler could have been a fraud, which culminated in that pneumatic paper.

Well I for one appreciate your level of involvement & expertise Jonathan. Perhaps you can down size your disclaimer now :)

I must have missed this, can you give me the thread & link to your paper please ?

[Jonathan]

You guys are too kind :). Here's that link Fletcher:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678
I liked the elastic too, because it was possible for me to make a chain of rubber bands, and the last of them would just loop around a peg in the pulley. Then when released, it completely falls off the pulley, and that way it doesn't wind up the other way and slow down the spinning (it all happens quite fast, so it helps that the aftermath lasts long enough for me to register what has happened).
I think the large rotor will not move regardless of "A", "B", or "C"; I will try it. But you have made a mistake in your aether idea, because though one side of each wheel 'would impact more aether', the other side of each would impact less; much like the Doppler effect. It seems to me that it should act the same regardless of which theory is true.
Usually, in this context, "nonconservative" is all you have (that I can think of at the moment). But technically, you could call such a field "curly" (literally, no joke).

[jim_mich]

It seems to me that it should act the same regardless of which theory is true.

You may be right. What if I think of the EE as wind or water blowing down from above and the wheels as being covered with fins? I need to think on this some more.

[Jonathan]

I did the experiment, the both the large and medium rotors didn't turn.
If you view the aether as a material fluid, then it would tend to make both rotors of "A" stop spinning, but it wouldn't change their weight as compared to when they weren't spinning.
Think about it like this: the rate at which aether impacts the paddles is greater on the ascending side, and less on the descending side, as compared to no spinning. The amount more or less is equal for all diametrically opposed paddles. So if the paddlewheel had an infinite number of paddles, then each paddle on the 'heavy half' of the wheel would be have a corresponding paddle on the 'light side' of the wheel, and so the increase of weight on one side would be canceled by the decrease on the other side, making the whole device have the same weight as when not spinning.
This line of thought also proves that the aether is immaterial, since gravity doesn't cause paddlewheels to stop turning.

[Fletcher]

Jonathan, I re-read the whole thread. Haven't you just shown a "coupling" ? A binary star system is a couple if they are rotating around a common COG. I'm not getting what you are trying to say ?

[Jonathan]

Well technically yes, but not just any coupling. This coupling demostrates interesting principles, as illustrated (enlarged view) below. As before, red is elastic. But this time there is no thread, it has been burned, and the elastic is in the process of unwinding. Blue arrows are the forces exerted by the elastic. The dotted blue arrow is the force required by Newton's Third Law, which is an example of pression point jumping (force exerted at the rim of the small rotor, but that is felt by the medium rotor at the small one's axle). Both dotted black lines help indicate geometric relations, and the dotted black line with positive slope also represents a virtual lever arm. The green arrows are the forces as felt by that lever arm, caused by the fact that the dotted blue arrow doesn't have the same line of action as the higher of the two plain blue arrows.
This diagram geometrically proves that the torque on each of the rotors is equal and opposite, and since this torque will be exerted on each for the same amount of time, their angular momenta at any instant are equal and opposite too.
Also notice that there are no forces shown acting on the axle of the medium rotor. This is because the pression point forces from the green arrows are equal and opposite. "D" in the previous attachment physcially proved this fact. Continue noticing, that one of the green arrows was derived from the dotted blue arrow, which I said was a pression point force. And I just said that both green arrows cause pression point forces at the medium rotor's axle. This means that one pression point force can give rise to another, and leads to the conclusion that such forces are not just abtract entities for the balancing of equations, but are a real class of force.
Lastly what I think is interesting is that though one rotor goes one way and the other goes the other way (which is not novel at all), one rotor revolves with the other; that is, though everything is not spinning in the same direction, everything is going around together, and yet there is no net momentum. (To clarify my usage of the words: the Moon rotates around its axis, but it revolves around the Earth).
Imagine, a simple inertia propellor consisting of two balls and a spring on a platform. Imagine that the spring is attached to the platform, and when released, it hits both balls. One ball flys out the back of the device, and the other hits a wall on one side of the platform. So now we have a platform, ball, and spring moving in one direction, and a single ball moving in the other, a simple mechanical rocket really. Their momenta are equal and opposite. But in the case of these rotors, there momenta are equal and opposite as in the linear version, but unlike the linear verion, everything is going together. In the linear version, a ball left and will never come back, but in the rotary version, nothing is lost, and technically everything is turning together.

[terry5732]

Almost quote:
" Perpetual motion is everywhere, Conversion of energy is the answer"

Gravity is a weak force(in our observable dimensions)

Objects in motion (esp. spinning) display different gravitational effects.

It is believed by some that gravity is comparable in strength to EMF, but the rest is in another dimension.

I believe motion interacts with another dimension.