Matter and Energy

[Fletcher]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

You have a choice to deal in terms of Newtonian mechanics or you can try and expand to Einstein's equations to explain a hypothesis for a working wheel.

One makes sense at the macro level, the other is almost impossible to observe, therefore of no relevance to a mechanical wheel and gravity force, IMO.

Ken B went down this track many years ago, and that was/is the basis for his theory of why a gravity wheel can work.

For those not familiar, that weight masses inside a wheel lose a small proportion of mass over time which is converted to useful external work energy, by means of the fact that the weight masses have velocity.

I could find the full explanation but I can't be bothered. It didn't fly then so I don't know why it would be entertained again now, albeit in a slightly different guise.

For all intents and purposes a spring doesn't increase in mass when energy is put in to it, in terms of macro Newtonian mechanics.

[ME]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

I could give a summary if you want... (I assure you: you don't want, actually me neither)

Anyway, glad you 'chimed in': Newton it is.

[Furcurequs]

I am totally perplexed here. What an amazing analysis !!

That will show Jim! But what was the purpose exactly?
.. ah never mind, it showed Jim anyway.

Is someone please able to rewrite all the formula's so we can apply it all to our wheels !!
In the meantime, I agree with Jim and just use classical mechanics.
(So I'm awaiting the new formula's)

ME,

What's there to be perplexed about (other than jim_mich's incredible ignorance and arrogance, of course, or maybe your own obtuseness)?

Some of us have chosen to address jim_mich's ACTUAL ARGUMENT so as to show where it is that he is ACTUALLY INCORRECT.

He has called what might have been one of the greatest insights of the 20th century "foolishness" while promoting a perhaps now unique view that maybe no intelligent and educated scientist has had for near a century.

This insight that jim_mich apparently doesn't understand has been taught in chemistry classes (which apparently jim_mich hasn't had) and physics classes (which apparently he hasn't had, either, unless of course he slept through them all) for generations now. It was taught when I was a child and even for years before that, and of course it has been experimentally validated in numerous ways. It's something that is central to the understanding of what is going on at a fundamental level in physics (and certainly even something I've personally pondered for decades).

Also, none of us pointing out jim_mich's error have argued that the immeasurably small mass difference which, of course, would have an immeasurably small weight difference, too, would provide any sort of significant weight imbalance or anything like that.

I'm confused, then, about your own stance. Is it appropriate for jim_mich to promote a bunch of ignorant nonsense while calling others idiots and whatnot for simply pointing out what the actual science is? ...and then to go on to pretend like he's some sort of victim (or, God forbid, persecuted genius... ...lol) for being challenged on his BS?

I'll tell you one thing, those who believe jim_mich actually knows what he's talking about in this (and/or some other things he's already been shown his errors in), though they may have signed up for the race, are certainly not my competition.

I'm tempted to make a Special Olympics analogy, but as we saw when the president did that, it can get one into trouble. ...lol

...but believe what you will, I guess, and make whatever excuses you have to while playing into all the forum's political BS. Like I said before, jim_mich is gifted in one thing. He sure knows how to draw in the most ignorant and gullible of people to come to his defense.

Too bad, though, that none of you can defend him when it comes to the actual facts.

[eccentrically1]

The first law of thermodynamics also supports energy mass equivalence.

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Other sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

http://physwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Classi ... and_Energy

Either way you look at it, Newton or Einstein, provides a means for perpetual motion. The argument is academic. And academically speaking, Einstein is correct. The spring gains internal energy, and the corresponding infinitesimal mass.

[ovyyus]

For all intents and purposes a spring doesn't increase in mass when energy is put in to it, in terms of macro Newtonian mechanics.

Now I'm confused. Fletcher, do you agree with the statement below?

A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more, not even an immeasurably small amount more.

[rlortie]

I wonder how much of this thread was knowledgeable to Bessler when he invented his alleged self-sustaining wheel? Did he read the physics books or was he stuck with the "hands on approach"? My money is on the latter.

Never have I seen so many members spend so much time over the weight of a spring. When a liquid evaporates it obviously changes in mass/density, but its weight I believe is still the same once cooled back to liquid.

Consider the time and wasted energy spent on debating weight of a spring, when Jim could be finishing that last % of his wheel build.

Is this forum being converted to a home for arm chair theorist or is it for pursing a PM wheel? Where are the innovators and their ideas?

Off topic: While upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10 I noticed that helloha has not been around since early June. While re-registering my YOU TUBE account, I found him at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl87np ... D1aJ3qJ7eA

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Now I'm confused. Fletcher, do you agree with the statement below?

Technically, no I don't Bill .. but then I don't want to go picking holes in everything everyone says daily in every post. It would be a waste of my time and only irritate people and myself.

I accept that context has a lot to do with discussions, and sometimes we get it wrong, and as I said before its pretty clear to me that Bessler's wheels were big items cemented firmly into Newtonian concrete.

For me that's the end of the story, and whether Jim believes his statement to the nth degree or not is irrelevant to me when I consider macro-mechanics.

[ovyyus]

Technically, no I don't Bill .. but then I don't want to go picking holes in everything everyone says daily in every post...

Good to hear. However, I think when someone posts wrong 'facts', and calls others 'foolish' in order to support their wrong 'facts', then time spent on a correction is in order. It seems the real waste of time begins when the chance for a better understanding is twisted into defense strategies designed to cover up a wrong belief.

[Fletcher]

Yeah Bill .. accepted.

But personally it is not compulsory to accept every invitation to an argument that's offered up by someone.

You look for trends before deciding.

[Wubbly]

For all intents and purposes a spring doesn't increase in mass when energy is put in to it, in terms of macro Newtonian mechanics.

That summed it up perfectly. The change is so small, it's not going to power your wheel, so you look elsewhere for a solution.

[Furcurequs]

Which was, of course, not even the issue being argued about.

So, I summed it up even more perfectly from the onset.

ETA: Fletcher even already admitted that he didn't know what the fuss was about. ...lol

[preoccupied]

Is there more or less energy when levers are used? If a gear were wound for a really long time to wind the spring, and then when the spring weight is used it's trying to spin out the gear quickly, does that gear wanting to spin out quickly store more energy? It doesn't store any more leverage or torque, but the gear itself being pushed on the spring wants to spin out fast whereas the winding of the gear was wound slowly before it was used as a weight on the wheel.

[ME]

I wonder how much of this thread was knowledgeable to Bessler when he invented his alleged self-sustaining wheel? Did he read the physics books or was he stuck with the "hands on approach"? My money is on the latter.

Never have I seen so many members spend so much time over the weight of a spring. When a liquid evaporates it obviously changes in mass/density, but its weight I believe is still the same once cooled back to liquid.

Consider the time and wasted energy spent on debating weight of a spring, when Jim could be finishing that last % of his wheel build.

Is this forum being converted to a home for arm chair theorist or is it for pursing a PM wheel? Where are the innovators and their ideas?

I don't know Ralph,

I was under the impression I helped our topic-starter DannyBouy.
It took 1 page to get to the point where he wanted to draw some inspiration from nature: a simulation of the compressing and expanding of gas to and from liquids/solids. I suggested a spring.
I suspect he looked at General-relativity to see if such was able to generate energy.. A good question, I think DannyBouy is the only innovator in this whole topic.

After page 2 things became... not practical.

[John doe]

Well I'm glad to see things haven't changed while I was away. Same names and politics mostly. Good to see everyone is still here And doing well.

[DannyBouy]

Thanks again for all the responses. The idea of a gravity caused expansion/contraction of a gas molecule could have each atom of the gas weighing 10kilos.

This is from this discussion:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 812#146812

This change in mass is too small to be observed for ordinary-sized masses and springs

These particles aren't ordinary-sized. Unlike the particles of the above described collision, there could be a spring system between them such that the closer they get the more the attraction, like a synthetic gravity.

• Since it's synthetic, it could be made to act very differently than normal gravity.

In that event it might be better to look at this model as miniature twin stars. It could be the further they get from each other the more force repelling them.

The idea is to modify what occurs naturally, either at a cosmic or nano scale. This is necessary because perpetual motion doesn't exist in nature. The higg's particle does come in and out of time/space as do photons but we don't have much of an idea how they do it and how we should model it.

We do have a good idea how solar systems work. My thinking is to make them work differently. Or molecules.

The 10kilo atoms I mentioned might be any element.

• A significant difference is there is space between them that can be varied. Also they can occupy the same space.

This isn't an exact model of any real thing.

This model of stars (or particles) as it revolves will expand (maybe) toward its axis, pushing against the rim when below its axis. Then contract to the rim when its above the axis. This contraction/expansion is caused by gravity as the molecule (or star system)rotates.

• The revolution of the model causes the twin masses to rotate and expand or contract.

I'm not trying for an exact model of any thing real. Nothing real works. I want to look at real models and manipulate their physics, to make a model operate in a very unnatural way.


Thanks
Daniel