Proof of doing work

[evgwheel]

Hi
After reading all the post above and some others made me think about that wmd2 thingy.
Lots of members use it and I don’t know much about writing programs but somehow I feel that the program and others like them are written with all the possible references to known laws of physics and that all equations are references to those laws.
So if we are trying to tweak those laws, and for example the part what should say, if C doesn’t equal B etc. And that is what we want it to equal, but although it may be possible within the natural laws, no mathematician has written it in the law or even considered it possible, the program won’t work to look for our goal.
Another stupid thought by evg

[rlortie]

Well! look at the bright side for now and gain the incentive to keep pushing.

The brights side is: A self-sustaining wheel always returns to its starting point and therefore has not performed "Work" (just like a magnet) The only energy exchanged is the heat from friction in its bearings and wind resistance.

As for Sir Isaac Newton, I remember reading somewhere that he was very careful, dealing with the subject of gravity powered machines. He never let himself be made of record involving acceptance or denial.

IIRC was it not s'Gravenside that was sent by the English Science Society to check out Besslers wheel. If so then I would say that Newton being president at the time must have held an open mind.

Fletcher,

I like your magnet-coil measuring idea, knowing that any DC permanent magnet motor will also generate I considered those small 1-1/2 volt motors from radio shack. Of course I always think big and positive, so I have a 1260 watt 14 volt alternator sitting on the shelf ready and waiting.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Chicken & Egg, evg.

wm2d is a good tool for testing components of a wheel mech. It will reliably predict behaviour, if used correctly. You can even make & add fake forces like magnetism & buoyancy etc. The trouble is that every time you increase the complexity of the model parameters you slow the sims ability to compute the frames until [in my case especially] the sim 'blows apart' or as more often happens than not, it falls off the work page. So I reserve its use for testing simple geometric & dimension calculations & simple mech actions.

A sim package will be only useful to test something once you have found a potential 'loophole'. Then you can can test its prediction against a real world experiment. Rainer & I have done this many times only to find that wm2d is entirely correct & reliable [but then he is an expert user so can usually find what was missing to bring the two into line].

I think we need to approach the problem like jim_mich has done. Theorize about an effect or apparent contradiction of the known laws & then build [sim & real world] to prove the case. But you must have an idea first that is out in left field before you can look for verification. It may be too complex for the sim so you are left with no alternative but real build experiments.

Sometimes I think we place to much faith in sim packages turning up something out of the blue. No disrespect to anybody here but the old monkey sitting long enough at a typewriter will eventually knock out 'war & peace' comes to mind. A good build comes only after a good thought, imo. But until a law [which sims actions are based on] can be revoked or modified we have to prove the concept of the loophole.

We tinkerers are divided into two groups. One thinks there is an exotic effect of a known law to be found which might mean that wm2d can't duplicate it, as you say. In which case you are probably wasting your time using the sim to prove something it can't duplicate, outside its programing parameters. The other group thinks that the laws will hold firm & that wm2d is reliable but that we may not be able to build in sim world the necessary complexity to test the idea because of lack of computational power. I place my faith in a rational explanation that can then be proved by either build means.

Edit : Ralph, I'm always a little cautious & would start with a micro motor turning a fan but I like your optimisim in using the big grunter straight up :) The workshop beckons.

[jim_mich]

IIRC was it not s'Gravenside that was sent by the English Science Society to check out Besslers wheel.

s'Gravenside was from the Netherlands. He was shown Bessler's wheel by Count Karl. The next day Bessler destroyed the wheel. This was the last working wheel that Bessler built. A few months later s'Gravenside published test results of dropping weights at different speeds onto soft clay. This showed that internal kinetic energy is relative to the square of the speed, rather than being lineal. This was contrary to Newton's original equation. A few years later, around the time of Newton's death engineers began to make use of these formulas and found that s'Gravenside was right and Newton was wrong. The controversy was more about maintaining conservation of energy within the formulas. It seemed not logical to these men of science to have internal kinetic energy to be not lineal; that is to increase by the square of the speed. Yet the physical proof showed that such was the case. So the men of learning had no choice but to accept it as fact. They explain it mathematically but fail to explain physically why it happens.

I think this is the loop hole in physics that allows a motion wheel to output work. The energy comes from motion, not from gravity. The motion lifts the weights and then gravity on the out-of-balance weights turns the wheel.

[rlortie]

Jim,

yes, s'Gravesande, aka 'sGraveside, aka 'sGravesende was from the Netherlands. he also was well acquainted with Newton as a member of the Royal Society that Newton was president of.

History says that he was invited to view Bessler's machine by the Landgrave. I cannot readily find it at the momement, but there also is a record of s'Gravensande's visit as a Royal Society member for the purpose of the Society contemplation of purchasing Bessler's wheel.

Appointed as secretary to the Dutch Embassy, he was sent to England in 1715 to congratulate George I on has accession to the throne. While in London he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 9 June 1715. He got to know Newton, Desaguliers and John Keill at this time and, after returning to The Hague in 1716, he continued to correspond with Keill. In 1717 'sGravesande became professor of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Leiden. In addition, he became professor of philosophy there in 1734 [1]:-

By this time Hermann Boerhaave and sGravesande were established as the twin luminaries of Leiden, attracting hundreds of foreign students each year. From the outset of his teaching in both physics and astronomy 'sGravesande modelled his lectures on the example of Newton in the 'Principia' and 'Opticks', although in later years they incorporated other influences, especially that of Boerhaave. Moreover, he adopted from Keill and Desaguliers the notion of demonstrating to his classes the experimental proof of scientific principles

A rather strange episode occurred in 1721 when 'sGravesande visited Kassel to examine a machine invented by Orffyreus which purported to be capable of perpetual motion. He was invited by the landgrave of Kassel to pass judgement of whether the machine was genuine or whether Orffyreus was a fraud. 'sGravesande could find no evidence that deception was involved, and also seems to have believed that such a device would not contravene the laws of physics. Following his examination of the machine he wrote Lettre à Mr Newton sur une machine inventée par Orffyreus: Remarques touchant le mouvement perpétuel.


Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

[Bessler007]

Lots of members use it and I don’t know much about writing programs but somehow I feel that the program and others like them are written with all the possible references to known laws of physics and that all equations are references to those laws.

The laws of physics come very close to approximating the universe. Simulations can exclude some of that arithmetic. Not all known laws and equations constrain a simulation.

The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing.

—Sir Isaac Newton

[John Collins]

I suspect that that quote originated from Frank Edward's 'Strangest of all' and if I'm right it's best ignored as he is known to have made up things to 'flavour' his stories.

I should also point out that Newton designed a theoretical perpetual motion machine himself, a copy of which is in my book PMAAMS? It seems unlikely therefore that he would make such a statement.

JC

[scott]

I suspect that that quote originated from Frank Edward's 'Strangest of all'

Sorry John, which quote exactly are you referring to? There have been a lot of them in this thread.

Thanks,
Scott

[John Collins]

Sorry Scott, I was referring to the quote attributed to Newton in the post above mine. "The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing. "

There are very few quotes attributed to Newton on record and to me that doesn't sound like one he would have made. I think I remember it as coming out of Edward's book.
—Sir Isaac Newton

[Oystein]

It was Sir Isaac Newton who said, "The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing." Newton may not have been the nicest man, but he was no slouch when it came to physics. His words ring true today.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/200 ... ense.shtml

[Stewart]

I'm still working on my 'sGravesande presentation for the website, but will post some translations in my forum for those that are interested. I'm still typing up my translation of "REMARQUES SUR LA POSSIBILITÉ DU MOUVEMENT PERPETUEL", so I'll post that in installments. I've seen a copy of it that was sent to Bessler and someone (possibly Bessler) has underlined a few words, which is interesting. Bessler also wrote some notes in a letter about the tract, and I'm still transcribing and translating those. I'll post all the information I have about it as soon as I have finished it, and then we can discuss it.

Stewart

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

I found the quote here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

An accurate record is important imo. The laws of physics aren't always analytical and lack the resolution reality has. Simulations can be even less accurate.

I've noticed there is substantial flexing of rigid bodies in wm2d. This changes distances which effects velocities which in turn alters energy calculations. wm2d isn't the precise analytical tool it's made out to be.

[John Collins]

Hi Oystein and Bessler007. I accept that the quote appears on various web sites however, when I was researching my book I was particularly interested in what Newton had to say because of the letter written to him by 'sGravesande. In Birmingham(UK) Public Library there is a collection in ten or twelve enormous bound volumes containing every word ever written to and from Newton. No where within any of these volumes does the quote posted appear and IMHO it is out of character for Newton to have spoken on such matters. If it is genuine I would love to have the reference if anyone can find it?

Frank Edwards' first words in his chapter on Bessler reproduce that exact quote. We know that some of his other facts were wrong and we also know that that chapter is available widely on the internet Words often presented as facts tend to get repeated on the internet without checking sources and I am keen to ensure that information relating in some way to Bessler is correct or corrected. If I'm wrong I'll put my hand up and apologise.

No response to 'Gravesande's letter was ever recorded and this was typical of Newton who was notorious for his bad manners and disagreeable nature. Few comments by Newton, if any, are available to researchers and that is why I cast doubt on this quote.

Finally we know Newton did have at least a passing interest in perpetual motion, otherwise he would not have discussed it, however briefly, in his notes. His design required a material which would neutralise the effect of gravity locally! It seems to me to be unlikely that he would rubbish his own ideas with such a comment.

JC

[Bessler007]

Mr. Collins,

You are most likely right.

I called Cambridge and spoke with Hawking. He faxed me this quote. Is that how it starts? :)

Here is a good quote source:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_name

[Clarkie]

Hawkin not Hawking.

Why don't you go and do something useful?