Where are we all at?

[Grimer]

And now to the crux, how many "learning experiences" do we have to go through to get "close" to getting one running? Anyone got one running? and whats the consensus on the goal here, unidirectional or bidirectional?

The hardest thing to learn is that gravity alone can not cause a wheel to perpetually turn. Bessler tells us that the weights within the wheel must gain force by simple moving. This hints at inertial momentum as being the source of the wheel's energy. But it is well known that momentum is conservative. We are also taught that energy is conservative. but if you look at kinetic energy it soon is very apparent that kinetic energy is NOT ALWAYS conservative. If all the momentum of one moving weight is transferred to a second moving weight causing the first to cease moving and the second to double its speed then when the speed doubles the KE increases by 4 times. Thus the KE of the two moving weights doubles when one weight transfers it KE to the other weight. If the force of this increased KE is used to rotate the wheel in such a way that the two weights resume their original speeds then the cycle can be repeated perpetually. None of this violates any laws of physics, though some might say that it violates conservation of energy. [/url]

Very interesting post Jim. I came across this hiatus between Momentum and Kinetic Energy many years ago and it led me on to see that mass was a measure of motion and had nothing to do with matter as such.

After all, if you think about it we measure mass (linear inertia) by measuring motion. Obviously I am talking about denominator mass and not numerator mass. Two objects will have twice as much mass as one because they have twice as much of the internal motion that constitutes mass. Likewise, they will have twice as much heat, twice as much weight but heat and weight are not mass. In terms of substance/accident philosophy mass is accident not substance.

[John Collins]

John .. sounds like you now also think there is another "factor" additional to gravity ? *grin* - does factor translate to an innate force derivative of mass, gravity & motion, or added fuel ?

Hi Fletch. er....yes! ;-)

Sorry mate, I have to hold on to this for a little bit longer. You're right and so am I.

JC

[Grimer]

Greendoor
...
I'm kind of fixated on the "children, clubs and broken columns" story at the moment, maybe we should get a bunch of kids together and see what they make of it?
...

The "broken columns" may refer to the phenomena of long column buckling or the equivalent, two columns in line which will require very little force applied at the join to "break" the columns. In short it is a way of getting enormous leverage.

I had considered such a possibility as a doppelganger for the Rubber Band Gravity Motor but I had doubts about the vertical positions. I think I had better post my half-baked idea in case someone can improve upon it.

[axel]

The "broken columns" represent either all the failed attempts by everybody or all the mathematicians who couldn't figure out how to do it.

Hi Animal

Welcome to the forum and good luck with your research. A unidirectional wheel is all that's necessary - the only reason Bessler made the internal mechanism bi-directional was to prove to people that his wheel was not powered by an unwinding spring. Ultimately if you wanted bi-directional capability from your unidirectional wheel you could just add reverse gearing and not worry about figuring out a clever internal mechanism. I would think most people would want to use a Bessler wheel to generate electricity anyway, and therefore reversing the direction of rotation is pointless. The unidirectional wheels are the true invention - the bidirectional ones, as clever as they are, are just bastardised versions to please the naysayers.

I'm kind of fixated on the "children, clubs and broken columns" story at the moment, maybe we should get a bunch of kids together and see what they make of it?

I've recently discovered that the children are playing with marbles and not clubs. The word used by Bessler is 'Schniebe-Käulgen' which means marbles (the children's toy/game).

I work with large numbers of children on a regular basis and have over the years talked to some of them about Bessler's wheel. I'm constantly surprised by how genuinely interested they are by the story and the machine, and how good their ideas and insights are! It's also interesting to see that even at a young age the boys are more interested than the girls.

All the best
Stewart

[zoelra]

You could be right. Of course I am a mathematician, but what do I know. I think I'll just lay back down and shut up.

[axel]

Bessler was saying that even children playing with marbles could accomplish the "impossible" right under the noses of the big boys.

[Grimer]

The hardest thing to learn is that gravity alone can not cause a wheel to perpetually turn. Bessler tells us that the weights within the wheel must gain force by simple moving. This hints at inertial momentum as bing the source of the wheel's energy. But it is well known that momentum is conservative. We are also taught that energy is conservative. But if you look at kinetic energy it soon is very apparent that kinetic energy is NOT ALWAYS conservative. If all the momentum of one moving weight is transferred to a second moving weight causing the first to cease moving and the second to double its speed then when the speed doubles the KE increases by 4 times. Thus the KE of the two moving weights doubles when one weight transfers it KE to the other weight. If the force of this increased KE is used to rotate the wheel in such a way that the two weights resume their original speeds then the cycle can be repeated perpetually. None of this violates any laws of physics, though some might say that it violates conservation of energy.

That is because half of the KE is ignored. V squared has two roots, one positive and one negative (Jerk has 3 roots, Snap 4 and so on).

Total KE is therefore (+v)²/2 + (-v)²/2 and you end up with conservation of momentum squared. If momentum is conserved then spitting momentum up into its factors doesn't affect its conservation.

If 105 is conserved then 15 x 7 is conserved and 7 x 5 x 3 is also conserved.

Traditional KE ignores the algebraic sign of recoil. Hans recognised this but gave up before he really go to grips with things.

Impacts between dissimilar inertias leads to the energy being split into opposite rotations. But opposite rotations are both usable forms of energy as far as we are concerned. They cancel each other algebraically but not arithmetically. Hotter and colder than ambient are analogous usable energies. This can easily be demonstrated with a Stirling engine as I'm sure you know.

Well done Jim for putting your finger on the KE anomaly - even if you don't understand what the hell I am talking about. :-)

[axel]

KE, momentum, jerk, collisions, etc- but Bessler said the weights were lifted "lightly".

[primemignonite]

Yes, welcome Animal.

You might best savor all this slobbering attention now being paid you, for it will soon enough morph to something else entirely. Likely, your honeymoon period will prove a short one.

For seven years I've been watching and studying this particular, peculiar dynamic, and to it I've yet to observe an exception.

This association will tend to madden you, guaranteed, and don't count much on this present civility ever-continuing. In truth, it IS Animal House and sometimes far worse, even.

And to finish, dear Animal, BEWARE the rating system. It is on occasion used as a weapon for control by The Fivers that seem perpetually cemented into place.

mmCliquish? Most intensely so!

mmAt least that of itself does 'go'.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm- Burma Shave

Axel:

I don't know for sure but, my guess is that the original German was meant to be 'ascended', or some like-thing close to it.

For example, when throwing up a body by hand, it's mass ascends according to the momentum it possesses (less frictional losses) and decelerates until it is at zero velocity at it's highest. Then the business reverses exactly, arriving back with the same momentum as when it started (also less losses and we are assuming that the path lengths were maintained identically). Nice, neat and very conservative.

In-short-sum, my belief is that use of the term "lifted" in that context is wholly inappropriate and worse, that it is positively misleading. Case rested.

(Stewart? Fletcher?)

James

[Furcurequs]

Those in the know indeed might say that one would have to be mad to believe the honeymoon period could last for four years. Of course, though, what do I know? I'm still a dreamer, too.

;)

It seems "Animal" hasn't posted since 2009, btw.

Dwayne

[Grimer]

@ primemignonite

I think I should point out that you are a bit late in welcoming Animal to the forum. As you can see from his profile below he joined 4 years ago and has not been heard from since December 2009.

Code: Select all

Joined: 	               27 Apr 2009
Last Visit: 	           11th December 2009, 5:24 am
Total Online Duration: 	17:54:21
Last Online Duration: 	 00:04:46
Number of visits: 	     50
Number of page hits: 	  362
Total posts: 	          6
[0.01% of total / 0.00 posts per day] 

Find all posts by Animal
Word Count:	            651
108.5 average words per post
Location: 	             Brisbane, Australia
Website: 	 
Occupation: 	           Mech Design Draftsman
Interests: 	            Free Energy, Street Rods, Motorcycles
Blog: 	

The trouble is, people dredge up posts from the past and it's easy to miss the date of original posting. I've fallen into this trap more than once.

Edit: I see Dwayne got there 2 minutes before me.

[primemignonite]

Thanks for those corrections, boys

So, Animal knows all about it; my effort was to no avail. (Or, was it?)

Whichever may be the case, nevertheless, my points as-made still stand high, and for the general good.

Truth reigns supreme but, can be painful to ones on the receiving, denying side.

Uniformly, specifically, PATIENCE is running out. (As well as time???)

J.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote:

We are also taught that energy is conservative. But if you look at kinetic energy it soon is very apparent that kinetic energy is NOT ALWAYS conservative.

I would have probably used the term "force" rather than energy. True, kinetic and angular momentum are considered conservative, but in some text books it will also state that these forces can be diverted for other useful purpose. An example of this can be seen in a simple flywheel as it keeps an engine spinning and delivering power between combustion strokes.

In the era of steam driven trains, I have seen pictures of locomotives with up to 12 foot diameter drive wheels, utilized for pulling fast passenger trains while smaller wheels were used for moving heavy freight.

It is not the diameter of the wheel but rather the distance (radius) of drive rod pivot to axis and not to rim. That is to say that the twelve footers did not need a longer cylinder stroke than the high torque freight haulers. The kinetic and inertial force in a 12 foot diameter cast iron counter weighted wheel is not to be ignored.

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

 

In one of Walter Lewin's MIT physics lectures available online he speaks of an inelastic collision in which two equally massive objects with equal speeds but opposite velocities (as seen in the intertial reference frame of the observer) collide and stick together. After the collision both objects are then seen to be at rest and so he said the kinetic energy was "destroyed" (iirc) and so kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions.

If anyone knows just which of his videos this is, it would be nice if you could post the link to verify that I'm remembering this correctly. Unfortunately, I can't really access my copies of his videos at the moment and my dialup is a bit too slow for me to search through the ones online. ...sorry for that (as we Walters might say. My first name is Walter, too, btw).

Anyway, if one is only concerned with the motion of the individual objects as seen macroscopically as a whole, what he claims does indeed "appear" to be the case and I wouldn't have a problem using that simplification.

I would argue, though, that a more thorough modeling of the total system of mass which described things down to a molecular level would actually show that the kinetic energy is the same both before and after the collision - since thermal energy is itself kinetic energy. ...well, for the most part. The part that gets radiated away as electromagnetic radiation may not be considered that by some.

I believe people can get confused when they convert from one "form" of energy to another, though, when a few fundamental equations seems to describe it all.

At some point in the future I might elaborate on this, and hopefully after I have some things to show.

Dwayne

[cloud camper]

And to finish, dear Animal, BEWARE the rating system. It is on occasion used as a weapon for control by The Fivers that seem perpetually cemented into place.

Boy, you have that right. I had two green stamps stripped for even daring to challenge a certain "fiver's" physics knowledge!