Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[daanopperman]

So Ralph ,

A static mass in a gravitation less environment has no PE , despite the amount of energy it takes to relocate it .

It seems then that only gravity will induce something called PE .

Who would thought that gravity and PE goes hand in hand .

[rlortie]

dann,

"A static mass in a gravitation less environment has no PE."

I am sorry if I ruffled some feathers, I run out of patience when my posts are answered with off the wall physic philosophy.

I prefer keeping my feet on the ground, I do not know nor am I interested in anything regarding a gravitation-less state. I am sure that any mass outside earths gravity has potential energy as well as its own gravitational force. If not it would be hard to except its orbital properties.

Gravity does not stand alone for inducing PE, nor are they hand in hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

What does Pe mean for me?

It is The energy an object has because of its position, rather than its motion. An object held in a person's hand has potential energy, which turns to kinetic energy — the energy of motion — when the person lets it go, and it drops to the ground.

Now please! do not go into the discussion of the chemical energy spent raising and holding an object in my hand and dropping it. That is pretty much a "given" and is not part of the point I attempted to convey. It deals with why we are taught gravity is conservative.

I have been battling this issue since 1957 at the age of 17. I am not ready to throw in the towel just yet.

Ralph

[ME]

Actually when you think of it... You may know Bessler's wheels were made out of wood.
Created out of the remnants of majestic living things who use sunlight as their source of energy... until chopped up into planks.
It was part of the circle of life so to speak... until it was broken down for another perpetual thing.

I've mentioned somewhere else that a perpetual motion machine which breaks down eventually could still be considered perpetual motion when it's able to generate twice more power in its mechanical form than the maximum possible generated power of burning its weight.
Make one wonder about the origin of power... Aren't we all stardust?


Besides that, I think what Ecc1 means is that a weight can only go back up by transforming generated Kinetic Energy back to Potential Energy, showing the conservative nature of (gravitational/directional) force, or by some external force, which is usually a form of Solar Energy.
Which shows the scientific standpoint that any construction with mass simply can't pull itself up by mere gravity.

Like a gasoline-powered engine which can only use the gasoline once, so can mass-displacement (driven by gravity) power an engine... theoretically once.

[ovyyus]

Like a gasoline-powered engine which can only use the gasoline once, so can mass-displacement (driven by gravity) power an engine... theoretically once.

Theoretically... and by every physical observation... just once.

Bessler agreed with Wagner about the futility of it, seeming to admit that his overbalanced wheel wasn't powered by gravity.

[ME]

I'm not so convinced there was any agreement with Wagner besides mutual annoyance...

Is it possible to fool gravity?
Is it possible to perform weight-lifting magic?
Is it possible to be an artist who flings a heavy weight up lightly?
Is it possible that when one pound drops one quarter there'll be four pounds racing up?

It may sound strange and fantastic, but perhaps it simply is possible while the rest of the world is unknowing.

Bessler still inserted weights inside his wheel where they rotated around each other.
Bessler's wheel was still able to lift some external weights. I'm not sure but I hope it was a lot more than the sum of the inserted weights times the diameter of the wheel.
With this ability it seems this pounds-and-quarter-statement becomes a math-trick/puzzle, and not necessarily indicating an impossible rigid lever beam situation.

A hoax seems to be one of the few alternative options.
Or worse: when Bessler secretly invented some reciprocating thermal expansion machine (not necessarily solar powered) then I would guess it would either be noticed by sound, smell and exhaust or otherwise still be a concealed/hoaxed power source (when placed in some adjacent room) - Although concealing such "modern" invention would be beyond stupid even in Bessler's century.
In all those alternative cases Karl should have kicked him out.

Contemplation, speculation, guess, hunch, conjecture

A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.

It's a theory that scientific theory might be wrong. But how?

[eccentrically1]

Until someone shows a PM machine, the topic remains a philosophical debate. Sorry about that.
I haven't built anything, because I haven't figured out what to build yet. I know it would require a source of energy that wouldn't leave a fingerprint. Most likely warm and cool air, which also carry a pressure differential. It's the environment. Bellows are also at the top of the list.

[agor95]

@eccentrically1

No problem you did talk about Bellows and that is in Besslers MT Drawings.

It's just the pages/time reading non topic material.

It is called 'navel gassing' and should be optional so but it in non-topic.

I think I have a rational for 138 the left hand toy and 141.

I plan to post a non-topic on the nature of spring profiles.

However it will not be on this thread.

Regards

[eccentrically1]

My comments are short and to the point; I'm one of the least guilty of posting anything off-topic in a thread. Just because it doesn't agree with your philosophy doesn't make it off-topic navel-gazing.

Regards

[ME]

Agor, sorry for going off topic when I ask: could you elaborate a bit more on your last three contributions in this topic?

As far as I can grasp we learned this:
Post -3: You know for yourself what you value. But what does that mean? Is it constant or does it change? Perhaps we value the same.. or not.
Post -2: You say you are able to explain gravity and CF... good for you, but you don't attempt any clarification .
Post -1: It's nice you have a rational for 138 and 141...but why, or perhaps better, what?

And what is "naval gassing"? And if such thing happens, could you point out where exactly?

[John Collins]

Edited my witty response ...too late.

JC

[agor95]

@eccentrically1

Quit correct; I will defend your right to go off topic.

As you will defend my right to find something on topic about it.

All the best to all.

[agor95]

@ME

Really far points - I sit humbled.

What I value changes with the insight from good people like yourself.

I could explain why gravity [warping of space-time], C/F calculations and even aero-dynamic lift are mathematical approximations.

I trust we both are in agreement that mathematical formula are approximations to reality?

I am looking at the spring like device required for the wheel.
It's just possibility in 1717 Bessler built it using MT 138 structure.

MT 141 has two meanings

1. The eye refers to the A.P. wheel and you have to turn it upside down.
2. It is a reminder to people that even simple toys can do amazing things.

And what is "naval gassing"? And if such thing happens, could you point out where exactly?

miss-spelling 'navel gazing' - apologies

I will give the task of explaining this type of gassing to John :-)

P.S. I will stop posting on this topic because I am off topic
'Hung by my own petard'

[ME]

:-)
So many people, so many more opinions and ideas. Some think mathematical formula's and their origins are evil.
The only one able to confirm the truth of Bessler's wheel is Landgraf Karl. But Karl can't enlighten us and only adds to the myth & mystery.

For a puzzle without a yet known answer it's hard to say which reply is exactly off-topic or not, hopefully only a few replies don't resonate (even after persuasion attempts). It's also hard to say which opinion sparks the winning idea somewhere else, so I agree with Ecc1 that it's largely a matter of philosophy and also with Ralph to keep at it and try many different approaches (depending on skill sets).

I think this dilemma (truth or fiction), as mentioned by Ovaron with his opening post, is an essential part of all our quest for investigating (Bessler's) Perpetual Motion. Without needing to admit ones own dilemma, what better demonstration than showing such struggle in the topic itself?

Besides that, it seems almost impossible to keep things on-topic after a handful of pages...

The eye refers to the A.P. wheel

It does?

[daanopperman]

Hi Ralph ,

the Sun evaporates the water , but it is due to gravity that the water is in the dam upstream , if there was no gravity , there would not have been a reservior full of water upstream .

What happens if you let loose a helium filled baloon in a container filled with oxigen , it rises because of gravity , it is less dense , the same with water vapour .

If you repeat the same exersize of the helium baloon in a gravity less envioroment , the results would be quit different .

A mass may have K.E. in a enviorment deprive of gravity , but it cannot have P.E. , I am not talking about a spring , or a compressed gas eccetera , just a mass , whether the mass has been moved from one position to another in any direction .

To state that the Sun is responsible for the P.E. stored in the water upstream is in my mind not correct . If the sun beats down on the water , evaporating it , it would go nowhere without gravity .

It has been a couple of days since my post , yet no-one came to the party to explain HOW the Sun brought the water to the reservior , and if there is still some-one who think this is the case , please explain HOW .

I came to your aid , not to antagonize you .

Daan .

[rlortie]

dann,

First I wish to make it clear you are not antagonizing me! I appreciate your support and the thoughts that it brings to mind.

I agree, the sun evaporates water and being less dense than air it raises, gravity moves it by heavier or denser air attempting to equalize with it due to gravity, which is where the word "dense" is used to apply how much gravity plays upon a mass.

We all agree that a helium balloon will raise in ambient conditions, but what about its inertial properties? Let loose a helium balloon in an automobile or any moving container. We are accustomed to having things forced back on acceleration and inertia throwing it forward during an abrupt stop. Inertia in a helium balloon does just the opposite, It accelerates forward than the auto is picking up speed and inertia moves it back upon deceleration as the denser air pushing forward replaces it. Why? because there is a higher density (gravity and inertial properties in the air than in the balloon.

I hold second thoughts about you following statement:

A mass may have K.E. in a environment deprive of gravity , but it cannot have P.E. , I am not talking about a spring , or a compressed gas eccetera , just a mass , whether the mass has been moved from one position to another in any direction .

I believe even in a gravitation-less state a moving (orbital) mass has Ke but to do so, first it is a mass possessing proportional gravity, and where there is gravity their is Pe. I quote:

"Gravity is a fundamental underlying force in the universe. The amount of gravity that something possesses is proportional to its mass and distance between it and another object. This relationship was first published by Sir Issac Newton. His law of universal gravitation says that the force (F) of gravitational attraction between two objects with Mass1 and Mass2 at distance D is:

F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.

(G is the gravitational constant, which has the same value throughout our universe.)

Einstein's theory of relativity adds to this. His theory predicted that objects with great mass deform space around them, causing light to deflect into them. That has been shown to be true. He also predicted that gravity could travel in gravity waves, which we haven't seen yet.

None of this explains why mass or distance affects gravity, though. To do that, we must look at the theories of scientists more recent than Einstein. According to theory, the reason mass is proportional to gravity is because everything with mass emits tiny particles called gravitons. These gravitons are responsible for gravitational attraction. The more mass, the more gravitons.

Graviton theory also accounts for differences in gravitational attraction over distances. Most gravitons exist in a cloud around the object. As distance from the object increases, the density of the graviton cloud goes down, so there is less gravitational attraction."

A zoom-able slide show:

https://prezi.com/pibhkk0gq1w-/relation ... d-gravity/

Ralph