The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[Art]

Awe Ecci ,

This is terrible , lets try and summarise .

A machine that produces a motion , in relation to the Earth if you like (which is a part of the overall Universe in which the machine exists ) must do so by the use of force .

To say you can produce such a machine without using force is nonsense .

To produce a machine that produces a 'perpetual' motion without using force is also a nonsense .

I don't think Helmholtz is saying that machines don't work by means of force !

If you have a perpetual supply of force you can have a perpetual motion machine .

What Helmholtz concludes is that Perpetual Motion Machines are impossible because you cannot 'create ' force from nothing .

If force can travel through material connections (through matter) then there cannot be a valid reason why that force can not come from wherever it is available from , as long as it is available AND as long as there is a material connection between the Machine and the force .

Helmholtz is saying that the force is not available unless you 'Create" it in the machine .

This is the problem . !


Why do you have to create the force when by his own words

"It follows thence that the total quantity of all the forces capable of work in the whole universe remains eternal and unchanged throughout all their changes . "

Force is available every where there is a material connection . We cannot create force and we don't need to. It is every where .

People can use the words "perpetual motion is impossible" and repeat them perpetually but they are sure not being very convincing with their reasons and I think thats because they are parroting Helmholtz ! :)

[eccentrically1]

I think where you're misunderstanding the lecture is when he uses the word force, he's substituting it for the word energy. On the Conservation of force = On the Conservation of energy.

Force is only the evidence that energy has been transferred from one body to another, either in the form of motion or heat. What one body gains, the other body loses in proportion.

Until someone produces a machine that creates its own force (energy!), and thus invalidating the thermodynamic laws, then PM remains impossible.

The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM.

[ME]

Let me get this straight.
Unstable starts a thread.States that Bessler was a fraud because PM is an "unrealizable illusion".Spends 9 pages defending that position and insulting every forum member along the way. Then makes a complete turnaround and starts discussing his latest design which is based on Bessler clues! These discussions are a monumental waste of time and intelligence.

True.

But a waste? Hmm.. at least I'm trying to figure this following stuff. Not that I agree with my own conclusion though... and didn't we all want to study perpetual turnarounds?


Nash-equilibrium - The pay-off matrix for non-cooperation.
I think fitting for this topic.

What's interesting is that the matrix actually can't be expressed without introducing hidden states and values, because one can never precisely know what the other motivates. It evaluates not a decision strategy as it normally would, but the benefit of assumed motivation...
That may totally invalidate the matrix as-is, but lets proceed anyway for the sake of exercising my argument with Oystein:

a. You think you shared Codes, I think you shared Assumptions.
b. You proly think I have my own Assumptions, I think I value Information.

My motivation:
a. Even though you sneak-in some code-sharing attempts afterwards, you started with your first post on page 1 where you abused daVinci tells me otherwise.
b. I think I have made myself perfectly clear that I react to your assumptions you wrote in this topic, not what you figured out somewhere offline I know nothing about.

What is your motivation?

So let's look at a possible pay-off matrix.

Code: Select all

Oystein \ Marchello      | Accepts information (e+c) |  Has one's own assumptions (f+d)
-------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------------
Shares information (a+g) | (+1+1) \ (+1+1)  [sum= +4]|   (+1-2) \ (-2+1)     [sum= -2]
Shares assumptions (b+h) | (+2+1) \ (+1-2)  [sum= +2]|   (+2-2) \ (-2-2)     [sum= -4]

Let's me explain my used number... obviously subjective and thus suspect of being unfair for Oystein.

a. When you share your information(decodings), you say you do it from the goodness of your heart: +1, when you don't share then there's no matrix.
b. When you share assumption, your keep any insights for yourself plus it allows you to manipulate others: +2
c. When your stuff gets accepted, you feel (to pick a term) happy: +1
d. When your stuff gets suspected, you feel unhappy + you loose power (to pick a term): -2

e: When I accept the free information, I feel happy: +1
f: When things conflict with my own assumptions, I get a bruised ego plus I feel unhappy (-2)
g: When I receive information then I gain knowledge: +1
h: When I receive assumptions then I get conflicted information plus get manipulated (-2)

So we can already conclude at a superficial level that it is beneficial to share, and not entirely in my own interest to counter that suspected misinformation with all my own assumptions (even though I think I'm right, but Oy thinks I'm not).

Now what is my motivation to do all this..?
No matter how weird, no one can trust the opinion of involved ones any more and we need another factor.
The matrix misses an audience: a 3rd dimension

Let's make it an observer-referee. Say it multiplies/empowers the influence with a factor of 3, but off course do not share in my alleged bruised ego (f remains).

Code: Select all

Observer agrees with Marchello

Oystein \ Marchello      | Accepts information (c+e) |  Has one's own assumptions (d+f)
-------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------------
Shares information (a+g) | (+1+1) \ (+3+3)  [sum= +8]|   (+1-2) \ (-2+3)     [sum= 0]
Shares assumptions (b+h) | (+2+1) \ (+1-6)  [sum= +0]|   (+2-2) \ (-2-6)     [sum= -8]

Code: Select all

Observer agrees with Oystein

Oystein \ Marchello      | Accepts information (c+e) |  Has one's own assumptions (d+f)
-------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------------
Shares information (a+g) | (+3+3) \ (+1+1)  [sum= +8]|   (+3-6) \ (-2+1)     [sum= -4]
Shares assumptions (b+h) | (+6+3) \ (+1-2)  [sum= +8]|   (+6-6) \ (-2-2)     [sum= -4]

Code: Select all

Observer doesn't care less, and is perfectly capable to stay far away from this nonsense

Oystein \ Marchello      |         Whatever 
-------------------------+---------------------------
Whatever                 |        -10 \ -10

So despite the fact that it's clear that everyone looks at their own quadrant (or not at all), with perhaps their own altered values, the conclusion should be more or less be clear and simple:
It is better for everyone to just accept whatever Oystein explains, and just don't agree with me. Thanks guys, very helpful :-)

Oystein, good game!

[unstable]

In truth this thread has quickly turned into an "all against all" (or almost). But that was to be expected.

[Gill Simo]

re: The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion.....

We, mankind, lump our evolution of knowledge/understanding in with the Darwinian take on physical evolution. We assume it to be a chronological, straight line of progression.
I'd contest that both the physical & mental are evolved, in/by Nature, via the simple process of learning from mistake....that Nature will never get it right, only get closer to getting it right by getting it wrong.
We are not immune to this natural process...as a species we pick a spot & set upon digging a hole to see what we might learn. And at some point we do actually learn something of truth...that we chose the wrong spot.
Right now we're surely poking around in the shyte at the bottom of a very deep hole, frantically trying to come up with something/anything that'll delay facing the wholly unpalatable truth.
And pretty soon, surely, the nature of things will have its way...resetting us to a new, simpler, spot, where mankind will cringe at the absurd & grossly complicated notions/theories that it was conjuring up in its desperate arrogance/ignorance...to then set about repeating the process at the new spot.
The Laws that we create & cling to cannot be right..that would simply be most unnatural..
We can all too easily look back over time & scoff at the absurd beliefs that prevailed at the time...'tis a lot harder to accept that our own beliefs will be scoffed at likewise, into the future.
Our goal here isn't impossible `in Truth`...it's only impossible because we've imagined/accepted it thus throughout the digging of this particular hole.

[Art]

I think where you're misunderstanding the lecture is when he uses the word force, he's substituting it for the word energy. On the Conservation of force = On the Conservation of energy.

Force is only the evidence that energy has been transferred from one body to another, either in the form of motion or heat. What one body gains, the other body loses in proportion.

Until someone produces a machine that creates its own force (energy!), and thus invalidating the thermodynamic laws, then PM remains impossible.

The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM.

"Force is only the evidence that energy has been transferred from one body to another,.."

---

Force is very clearly the means (or cause) of transfer of energy .

I think the reason Helmholtz never mentions "energy" in the lecture is because at that time
the concept of energy wasn't fully developed .
I think it would be interesting to actually research the timing and development of the term .
You might find that it leans heavily on that paper ! :)

++++

"The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM."

---

What is it then ?

[ovyyus]

"The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM."

Might it be considered PM while the energy source isn't defined?

[unstable]

Hi Gill Simo, interesting post, I liked it. There is something in the background that has to do with the natural selection that nature exercises.


Back to us. I think I understood how Bessler's wheel worked. But I will keep everything for myself, in the meantime I became selfish.

;-))

[ovyyus]

Claudio, this place has turned you into a wolf! :D

[unstable]

Ahahah Bill... really ! :-)

John, my apologies... I was wrong. You are right, Bessler's wheel was real and possible to replicate. I finally understand the principle of functioning.
I was on the right track and I haven't realized that. Now I got it.
"Connectedness" is the key point !

[unstable]

We have all tried in the most abstruse and difficult methods and, instead, the "secret" is something quite obvious. I do not say anything anymore if it does not seem to want to make you entice. It is a mechanical system and is based on gravity. Centrifugal force has nothing to do with it.

[cloud camper]

Hey folks - it's OK if Claudio changes his mind and has wild mood swings - he is Italian!

[unstable]

As if it were a condition to be despised :-))
Many characteristics of my countrymen, I can not stand them. But I must say that Italians have always helped to improve our world. Alas, some of them even make it worse. 'm an Italian from the north, fortunately I do not think I have the arrogance that some "Southern" Italians have. We are quite different between us too.
I'm a bit crazy, that kind of madness that led me to understand the mechanism of Bessler :)) I only have a good intuitive ability regarding certain systems.

[John Collins]

Thank you Claudio, I wish you the best of luck with your design.

JC

[eccentrically1]

I think where you're misunderstanding the lecture is when he uses the word force, he's substituting it for the word energy. On the Conservation of force = On the Conservation of energy.

Force is only the evidence that energy has been transferred from one body to another, either in the form of motion or heat. What one body gains, the other body loses in proportion.

Until someone produces a machine that creates its own force (energy!), and thus invalidating the thermodynamic laws, then PM remains impossible.

The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM.

"Force is only the evidence that energy has been transferred from one body to another,.."

---

Force is very clearly the means (or cause) of transfer of energy .

I think the reason Helmholtz never mentions "energy" in the lecture is because at that time
the concept of energy wasn't fully developed .
I think it would be interesting to actually research the timing and development of the term .
You might find that it leans heavily on that paper ! :)

++++

"The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM."

---

What is it then ?

It's unfortunate he used force rather than energy this way, it confuses things doesn't it? Energy as a concept was being used at the time, and before.

The word energy derives from the Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια, translit. energeia, lit. 'activity, operation',[1] which possibly appears for the first time in the work of Aristotle in the 4th century BC. In contrast to the modern definition, energeia was a qualitative philosophical concept, broad enough to include ideas such as happiness and pleasure.
In the late 17th century, Gottfried Leibniz proposed the idea of the Latin: vis viva, or living force, which defined as the product of the mass of an object and its velocity squared; he believed that total vis viva was conserved. To account for slowing due to friction, Leibniz theorized that thermal energy consisted of the random motion of the constituent parts of matter, although it would be more than a century until this was generally accepted. The modern analog of this property, kinetic energy, differs from vis viva only by a factor of two.
In 1807, Thomas Young was possibly the first to use the term "energy" instead of vis viva, in its modern sense.[2] Gustave-Gaspard Coriolis described "kinetic energy" in 1829 in its modern sense, and in 1853, William Rankine coined the term "potential energy". The law of conservation of energy was also first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. It was argued for some years whether heat was a physical substance, dubbed the caloric, or merely a physical quantity, such as momentum. In 1845 James Prescott Joule discovered the link between mechanical work and the generation of heat.
These developments led to the theory of conservation of energy, formalized largely by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) as the field of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics aided the rapid development of explanations of chemical processes by Rudolf Clausius, Josiah Willard Gibbs, and Walther Nernst. It also led to a mathematical formulation of the concept of entropy by Clausius and to the introduction of laws of radiant energy by Jožef Stefan. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[3] Thus, since 1918, theorists have understood that the law of conservation of energy is the direct mathematical consequence of the translational symmetry of the quantity conjugate to energy, namely time.

You can't apply a force without converting energy forms. So which is the cause? Force causes energy to transform, or does energy transformation cause a force?

A machine that draws energy from its environment was PM then, but we understand now that it isn't. It's just a machine that has a fuel supply that seems perpetual.