Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[jim_mich]

A few words of encouragement can be found here, Ralph...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE

Good grief silverfox, an hour and 20 minute lecture!
It sounds real interesting, but I'm already almost 2 GB over my normal 5 GB monthly internet usage and I still have three days left in the current billing cycle. Dang this new super-fast computer and super-fast 4G internet phone connection! It has caused my internet usage to increase about 50% per month.

---------------

I posted comments about a possible fluid version of Bessler's wheel. I'd like to make something absolutely clear. My fluid version does not involve anything unique about fluids. It does not involve any Bernoulli principle, or anything else unique to fluids. The principle envisioned for the fluid version of Bessler's wheel is the exact same principle envisioned by the solid weight version of Bessler's wheel. Both version's involve weight-mass moving in and out on a rotating wheel, where the in and out motions of the weight-mass results in a pumping action of both the wheel and the weight-mass movement.

Solid weights require mechanical means whereby the weights are made movable and require cross-bars or other means to inter-connect the motions of the weights.

Using fluid as the weight-mass simply requires a conduit pathway along which fluid is movable. The interconnection between the fluids becomes the fluid itself. This makes the fluid version much simpler than the solid-weight version. A simple single passageway snakes around the wheel forcing the fluid to flow in and out in the unique pattern that causes perpetual motion.

Note that Bessler said the motions of the weights caused the weights of his wheel to gain force.
Note that Bessler's last two wheels were gravitationally balanced.
Note that all weight-mass has three attributes.
1. Gravity is the tendency of mass to be move downward.
2. Inertia is the tendency of mass to resist motion.
3. Momentum is the tendency of moving mass to keep moving.
If you balance two in & out moving weights with another pair of cross-bar connected weights, then you get an always balanced wheel. But you still have the inertia and momentum (think spinning ice skater) of the weights as they move in & out.

[rlortie]

Need not watch the video, the first three paragraphs explaining it content makes the point. EDITED FOR BREVITY:

Published on Oct 1, 2012

In this video, British biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, describes how science is being constricted by unexamined assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. These dogmas not only put arbitrary limits on the depth and scope of science, but may well be dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these dogmas, all of reality is material or physical; the world is an inanimate machine; nature is purposeless; free will is an illusion; notions of higher orders of consciousness and absolute ("God") awareness exist only as ideas in human minds, which are themselves nothing but electrochemical processes imprisoned within our skulls.

So Dr. Sheldrake asks: should science be an ideology or belief system, or should it reclaim its birthright as an unbiased, open-ended method of inquiry? In his latest book, SCIENCE SET FREE, he argues that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price. In the skeptical spirit of true science, SCIENCE SET FREE turns ten fundamental dogmas of materialist science into exciting questions, and shows how all of them open up startling new possibilities for discovery. This book may well challenge your view of what is real and what is possible.

My 2 cents says that we are to buried in assumptions that laws set down hundreds of years ago are set in concrete. the terms "assume" such as:
Fluid mechanics assumes that every fluid obeys the following:

Or as Tarseir79 states;

what is normally considered a conservative force......

Where is the proof, there is no more proof that gravity is conservative than there is stating it is not. We spend to much time abiding by what we are taught rather than use our own initiative. exactly the point Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, is talking about in the above video.

Has our ongoing growth in technologies not shown that if man can perceive it he will eventually build it. If your answer is no; I ask you to review the 1967 TV series "star Trek" and how fascinated we were over their communicators and tricordors. Then take a look at your Smart phone with GPS, camera and all the other goodies thrown in.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

Thank you for a fine self-explanatory definition for a fluid operated device.

I wish to add to your comments in the following manner;

1. Gravity is the tendency of mass to be move downward.

Newtonian fluids seek their own level no matter if it is above or below the axle

2. Inertia is the tendency of mass to resist motion.

Fluids have "cohesion" the attraction by which the elements of a body is held together. Meaning inertial use is two-fold, not only forcing motion but pulling by cohesion.

3. Momentum is the tendency of moving mass to keep moving.

Time and Tide waits for no man.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Newtonian fluids seek their own level no matter if it is above or below the axle

Maybe I should add that the fluid passageway is totally sealed and thus the tendency of the fluid to seek its own level is not relevant.

Fluids have "cohesion" the attraction by which the elements of a body is held together. Meaning inertial use is two-fold, not only forcing motion but pulling by cohesion.

Since the passageway encircles back to itself, any motion of any portion of the fluid causes both a pushing and a pulling force to the rest of the fluid.

Inertia and momentum are in reality just different names for the same force. Both are the resistance of weight-mass to a change of velocity.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

A "Self Rotating Wheel " should do, this would cover all options!

Hi Jim, Ralph,
I still think Buoyancy wheels are better, the main reason is you can increase the air pressure to self open the reservoirs at the bottom of the wheel and then use all the leverage to close and latch the top reservoirs with the aid of the lower water pressure, thus dramatically reducing the force needed to work the system, I still believe this will work no matter what everybody else may think, I have done a lot of experiments in this field and do not see a fatal problem!!!
With respect Trevor

[MrTim]

I second "gravity turbine" (only because Murilo posted it before I could.... ;-)

[jim_mich]

Since this poll is about an OOB wheel as described by Ralph, and since such a wheel can never be turned perpetually by gravity acting on OOB weights, I would label the wheel futility.

A wheel rotated by in and out pumping motions of weights might be labeled an Ectropy-Motor©.

[rlortie]

Jim, wrote:

since such a wheel can never be turned perpetually by gravity

You apparently wasted a lot of your internet time in futility as you did not understand the lecture.

You say "never be turned", What is your empirical objective findings in arriving at this statement? I hope you have something better than; "Because it has never been done" or the math proves otherwise

As explained on the parent thread of this one, the bashers have no more proof that the perpetualist. There will never be absolute proof by the non-believers, the only course is for the perpetualist to discover utilization of gravity.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Jim,

"Ectropy" a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized.

(opposite of Entropy) a motor needs ectropy coming from the environment to keep it running. Is gravity in our environment not a source of ectropy?

Your suggestion to name it Ectropy motor does not appear to be that far off-base.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

No Ralph, gravity is not a source of ectropy.

Ectropy is:

In science, ectropy is synonym or derivative of negative entropy or negentropy loosely defined as the effect of ordering or a hypothetical organizing force. The term was coined in 1910 by German physicist Felix Auerbach. In modern terms, ectropy has come to be defined as the ability of living systems to use the environmental substances, rich in easily released energy, to maintain a given level of entropy and even to lower it. In mathematical thermodynamics, ectropy has come to be defined as a measure of the tendency of large-scale dynamical systems to do useful work and grow more organized.

History
The seed of the term 'ectropy' originated in the 1900 book Entropie der Keimsysteme und erbliche Entlastung (Entropy of Germ Systems and Hereditary Discharge) by German writer Georg Hirth.

French philosopher Henri Bergson used the term ectropy, in circa 1906, believing that life-phenomena were exceptions to “ectropy�, a kind of anti-entropy or chaos-to-order principle.

Influenced by Hirth, in the 1910 book Ektropismus oder die physikalische Theorie des Lebens (Ectropy and Physical Theory of Life), German physicist Felix Auerbach is said to have coined the term, in a dominant sense, when he compared the entropy of inert matter to what he called the “ectropy� of living form, linking it to the evolution and development of life.

The the English version of the term “ectropy� was first used in the 1947 Brussels symposium Problemes de Philosophie des Sciences (Problems of the Philosophy of Science) where, following a mention of Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 theory that metabolism is fundamentally neither an exchange of matter now of energy but of entropy, one of the group stated that “let us use the term ectropy for minus entropy�. The term was soon used in a similar sense by many others in the years to follow.

Maxwell's Demon is an ectropy concept where the system gains ectropy, that is it gains usable energy. When you study Maxwell's Demon you see that the gas container does not gain total heat, it only moves the existing heat from the cold side to the hot side, which increases the heat difference that is available to do work. In other word, the ectropy of the Maxwell's Demon apparatus is increased. The mechanism is then able to do work.

With Bessler's wheel the motion, that is the momentum of one weight is moved to another weight, thus moving motion from weight to weight, which does not increase the total motion of the system, but it increases the ectropy of the weights. Then the usable kinetic energy is used to increase the motions of both the wheel and the weights. Always note that KE (the ability to do work) is an exponential derivative of velocity.

[ovyyus]

When you study Maxwell's Demon you see that the gas container does not gain total heat, it only moves the existing heat from the cold side to the hot side, which increases the heat difference that is available to do work.

Assuming the Demon has done its job, when the heat difference is made to do work wouldn't the gas container lose total heat?

[primemignonite]

* * * * *

James wrote;

In feedback relationship, I suspect that the accumulating part must be able to expand and reach out so as to actually accumulate. Most particular arrangements of things and things and things are therefor needed, so as to tangibly accomplish such a required, peculiar trick.

Kudos or praise for your exceptional discerning and or acute perspective.

In reality, I do not consider it "peculiar" other than the fact it is a far cry from what Bessler leads you to perceive.

Ralph

Gees!

Thanks Ralph!

I only designated the trick peculiar because so-seeming; this on account of the severe oddness of the mechanical arrangements needed, for any effecting to actually occur. As well I might have said "difficult". (For any that might prefer, just substitute it.)

I'm really glad you ran this poll. It is leading to some very nice, alternate discussion.

"Details count."

James

[primemignonite]

* * * * *

A wheel rotated by in and out pumping motions of weights might be labeled an Ectropy-Motor©.

I liked that terminology from when I first saw it, as created by jim_mich.

As I recall, when first it appeared compliments of it's author, ovyyus, directly on the heels of it's birth, offered his own alternate: "ectropy generator" (I do not recollect about capitalization, it any.)

James

[primemignonite]

Given the empirical evidence to date it would be "a perpetual motion machine" (assuming no fraud).

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Being a hopeless Romantic at-heart (as well as Classicist), I too would prefer this over all others.

As that very early fellow was quoted as having said (or, did he write it?) ". . . it deserves to be called perpetual motion."

INDEED!

My little defining attempt was only crafted along the lines of trying to describe what I believe it to be operationally.

James

[ovyyus]

Thanks for the reminder James, so much water under the bridge, my question to Jim is now moot.