First Law Discussion

[jim_mich]

If you have a way of separating, sorting, or manipulating kinetic motion so as to condense it from one material into another material, then you have increased the amount of usable energy without increasing the total energy. Such a process would not break any of the previously mentioned laws. One must understand the limits of each of these laws.

If, yes.
Manipulating kinetic energy condenses it? What does that mean? Isn't condensing something making it smaller, more dense? Change gas to liquid?

If besslers wheel did what i summarised in my last post, and if we can believe what he wrote, then that would be a good example.
Can you think of any other examples?

I tried to think of a better word than 'condense', but maybe I didn't think long enough.

What poetic descriptive word might be used to describe transferring kinetic energy from one weight into another weight? One weight looses a large portion of its kinetic motion energy. The other weight gains said kinetic motion energy.

If you take tomato juice out of one can and squish/compress it into another already full can of juice, so that the second can hold almost twice as much juice (and become tomato paste), then 'condensing' seems like an appropriate word. Maybe I should have said 'compress' or 'squeeze' or 'add' or 'transfer'.

Yes, condensing makes things more dense. But if the container was full before adding more, then it doesn't get smaller, is simply gets denser.

If you take the heat from one side of a vessel (Maxwell's Demon) and move it to the other side of the vessel, you haven't made the warmer side smaller, but you have condensed the heat from the cooler side to the warmer side. The warmer side then has more heat, but has not changed volume.

[eccentrically1]

Well, transfer sounds better. But i still don't see where you ( or besslers wheel) are getting more energy after the transfer.
One mass loses a large portion of kinetic energy and the other mass gains it. But where does the increase occur?

[jim_mich]

But where does the increase occur?

During the first phase, there is no 'increase' of energy. There is only a condensing or transferring of energy. This makes the energy more usable. This makes the existing energy more capable of doing work.

If a wagon is hauling two weights, then the weights move the same speed as the wagon. If you want to make the wagon speed up, you could take some of the motion out of the two weight and leverage it relative the ground, and sling-shot the wagon forward. But then you have to go back and retrieve the two weights and spend energy to put them back on the moving wagon. You have accomplished nothing.

If on the other hand you take the motion of one weight and squish it into the other weight, then the total energy of the wagon remains unchanged. One weight has lost motion and the other has gained motion. The accelerated weight causes the wagon to slow down. The decelerated weight causes the wagon to speed up. The two actions cancel. So the wagon does not change speed. The total momentum of the wagon and weights does not change.

But if you let the inertia of the two weights pull against each other, then you get usable energy. And the two weights end up once again moving the same speed as the wagon. The usable energy can be used to push the wagon forward. So where does this extra energy come from? It does not make sense from a "conservation of energy" point of view. And with straight-line motion such as a wagon, you cannot cause the two weights to change speeds spontaneously as I've described. That requires a rotating environment.

A rotating environment does not act the same as straight-line motion. Such an environment is more complex. You have a mixture of frame of reference from within a rotating environment point of view. And a frame of reference outside the rotating environment. And you can move between a faster environmental radius to a slower environmental radius simply be moving inward or outward.

KE is not a substance within a moving weight. It is something that comes about when the motion of one weight mass acts against different motion of another weight mass. You might say its like Harry Potter magic. KE and associated force simply appears and disappears.

Note that advanced or unknown technology can be compared to magic. Cellphones would be magic to someone from 300 years ago.

[ovyyus]

You might say its like Harry Potter magic. KE and associated force simply appears and disappears.

Note that advanced or unknown technology can be compared to magic. Cellphones would be magic to someone from 300 years ago.

Jim, without a decent explanation of how things work people tend to revert to superstitious thinking about what they don't understand. The key to understanding starts with a decent explanation, whether that be 300 years ago or the present. In your case a decent explanation doesn't seem possible because you clearly don't understand where your proposed excess work output is sourced. At least Maxwell's Demon is explained in terms of potential work output as a result of thermal gradient.

It's an insultingly poor argument to simply say that your proposed appearance and disappearance of KE is like Harry Potter magic because you can't explain it, and then expect people here to buy that.

[eccentrically1]

Ok, so does the increase occur in the second phase, then? What would that be?

Rotating environments are different from straight line motion, but they still follow the conservation of momentum law, and two masses sharing each other's speed via a physical tether follow the momentum conservation principle regardless of reference frame.

But if you let the inertia of the two weights pull against each other, then you get usable energy. And the two weights end up once again moving the same speed as the wagon. The usable energy can be used to push the wagon forward.

http://hpspells.coconia.net/hpspells.html

[Fletcher]

EC1 & Ovyyus ..

The 'where does the excess energy come from' is of course the big question.

This is a variation of pequaide's energy creation thread - i.e. momentum is conserved in every contact but not every contact results in CoE.

Jim-mich was supportive of this theory though his mechanical solution is different to pequiade's.

What this means in theory is that there exists a mechanical leveraging device that allows a greater portion of velocity to be passed from a heavy object contacting a lighter one than the standard math for momentum exchange calculators allows, if this is true.

Then it would be possible to exceed 100% KE, or, IOW's, CoE does not hold for every type of mechanical exchange, there are exceptions - that would be the basis of the Maxwell's Mechanical Motion Demon metaphor, IMO.

[jim_mich]

First you ignore the simple analogy that explains the energy source.

In your case a decent explanation doesn't seem possible because you clearly don't understand where your proposed excess work output is sourced.

Second, you make an assumption that I don't know the source of the excess energy, because you clearly don't read what I write.

It's an insultingly poor argument to simply say that your proposed appearance and disappearance of KE is like Harry Potter magic because you can't explain it, and then expect people here to buy that.

Then as I begin to explain where the energy comes from you, reject it because I compare it to 'magic', and you assume I don't understand it.

The energy comes from the universe. People assume that KE is this magical 'stuff' that resides inside a moving object, but it is not.

As an example, an apple is moving towards an orange at some arbitrary speed. Or maybe the orange is moving towards the apple. Or maybe they are moving toward each other. Does the apple contain the KE? Or does the orange contain the KE? Or do both contain the KE in equal amounts?

A meteor shoots across the galaxy and hits you in the face. Did the meteor contain the energy that smashed your face? Or were you spinning through space, riding this planet Earth, and the meteor was stationary and you just happened to smack into the stationary meteor? So now did your own KE supply the force that smashed your face?

The answer is none of the above. The universe supplies the energy. If the apple is moving at speed 'Y' (relative to you the observer) then it is said to contain KE 'X'. If the orange is moving at the same speed, it also is said to contain KE of 'X'. If you add the KE of the apple and the orange, they have a total KE of 2X. But if the orange is considered stationary then the relative speed of the apple to the orange becomes 2Y and the KE of the apple is 4X. But if instead you're stationary with the apple and it gets hit with the orange, then the apple has ZERO KE and the orange has 4X amount of KE.

So if the apple is a wall, you get orange juice. If the orange is a wall, you get apple juice. If the fruits smash together, you get fruit punch.

When I say that KE is like magic, that it appears and disappears, you fail to understand my meaning. Then you try to insult me and say that I can't explain the energy source, rather than except the fact that I'm simply not giving out details at this time.

If you have the knowledge to make a wheel of your own, one which can turn in both directions, then you will understand miracles!

Will people truly understand what I'm getting at? The things that still remain to be revealed will have to be left for a future occasion.

What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!�

[ovyyus]

Then you try to insult me and say that I can't explain the energy source, rather than except the fact that I'm simply not giving out details at this time.

Rubbish. We've been down this path already. Aether theory is hardly new. The energy source for your engine is a theory. Fantastic.

Jim, why do you perpetually start conversations that invariably end with you saying, "not giving out details at this time"? What do you want?

[jim_mich]

What do you want?

Why can't we have a simple discussion about simple concepts, rather than pushing to reveal more?

Is there any flaw in my apples and oranges analogy? Is KE something that resides within object? Or is KE something that comes into existence when two objects are moving relative each other? Does KE act like magic? Can you take an object, absent any other reference object, and say, "This object has 'X' amount of KE?

This is what I want to discuss!!! Forget everything I've ever said before this point. Look at what I've actually presented in this thread. Is it wrong?

I've mentioned nothing about aether theory here, so why is it brought up?

You are the one that keeps pushing for an explanation of where excess energy comes from. And I keep trying to explain, without revealing intellectual property rights. But instead of trying to understand things, you stick your fingers in your ears and say, "Rubbish." You never point out why you think its rubbish.

I presented a simple example of apple and oranges. I show why Conservation of KE is not a physics law. Show me where the apple and orange example is wrong. I tried to make the example so simple that everyone could understand where excess energy can come from.

I presented a simple example of two weights on a wagon. With the wagon analogy, the only non-standard portion of the scenario is how you get the two equal moving weights to transfer motion from the decelerating weight to the accelerating weight. And if you know how to do that, (and I do know how in a rotating environment) then the rest of the scenario is a simple standard mechanics task. So what is the big deal if I leave out a little bit of "how to" intellectual property information. Why can't you simple acknowledge the rest of the discussion? Do you see any fault in the rest of the wagon scenario? Do you see any fault in the apples and oranges discussion?

I'm simply trying to break the discussion down to its most basic components.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote:

Is there any flaw in my apples and oranges analogy? Is KE something that resides within object? Or is KE something that comes into existence when two objects are moving relative each other? Does KE act like magic? Can you take an object, absent any other reference object, and say, "This object has 'X' amount of KE?

MAKING IT SIMPLE:

Jim, depending upon how you look at it, yes there are flaws in your analogy.
"Kinetic" is produced by motion, it does not take two objects moving relative to each other, and it does not reside within an object.

No, you cannot take an object absent of any other reference object and claim X amount of KE.

KE is simply the energy possessed by a body because of its motion, a reference point or another body moving relative to each other is not necessary or relevant to bring KE into existence, it takes inertia and pe to make KE.

Potential energy to start the movement by changing static inertia to dynamic inertia. The more Pe via time or quantity that is added the more Inertia you will gain which is KE

In my books, inertia is not referred to as a 'force' but rather a tendency. The tendency to remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an outside source. A resistance to motion, action or change. I do not know of any simpler explanation.

As for, "how you get the two equal moving weights to transfer motion from the decelerating weight to the accelerating weight." is a bit complicated, if they are equal in movement yet one is accelerating and the other decelerating, I am left to presume that to transfer while being equal is a matter of timing. Exactly what the relevance of this is, leaves one with something ponder. I presume the answer lays within your intellectual property rights.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Bill wrote:
What do you want?

Why can't we have a simple discussion about simple concepts, rather than pushing to reveal more?

Jim, the question is; if you have it, and do not wish to disclose, why are you wasting valuable time starting threads to discuss it? Why do you wish to keep debating that which you claim to have the answer,

IMO this weighs heavy for one to believe you do not have it. We have had one excuse after another from waiting for divorce to by final to vacuum molding desk top proto's.

The continuing debate/discussion of gravity verses motion without objectivity is repetitive, senescent, and time to move on.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

JM believes the 1st law does not apply to him because he does not understand it.

It cannot apply to him because that would get in the way of "The Plan".

And according to Jim, it only applies to processes involving exchange of heat.

But if we study the definition of the 1st law, we see that it clearly applies to isothermal (no temperature change) systems. Per the definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_ ... modynamics

"It is also often formulated by stating that when a closed system has a change of state, and its internal energy is changed only by work and not by heat transfer, then the net amount of work transferred is the same for all arrangements of work transfer that are possible for that change of
state."

Per Jim's statement "The First Law of Thermodynamics basically relates to heat engines and similar situations." we see that Jim does not understand that a rotating system of weights is continually converting energy from a state of PE to KE and the reverse. These are completely valid energy conversion mechanisms and fit completely within the above definition.

The key here is that once a system of weights has begun rotating, an energy conversion process has begun with an initial quantity of angular momentum, any process of manipulating weights within the system are equally non effective at producing an energy gain.

Impacts occurring within the system are no exception to the rule.

There is no waiver hereby granted for a Mr James Randall to violate said law.

JM has equal but total misunderstandings with regards to CF/CP. No exceptions have been made for Mr Randall with regards to the proven fact that CF is a fictitious force and is only represented by the inertial resistance to rotation of a mass object.

But none of this matters to JM and simply brushes it off appealing instead to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, stating his concept emulates "Maxwell's Demon".

However it appears that JM forgot to read the entire discussion presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

where we read "Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such "real demons" have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere."

What this says is that his macroscopic "demon" is allowed neither by the first law or the second.

[preoccupied]

I think Jim is right to praise his idea and ask for discussion because I think motion wheels have great potential because of my own idea. I want to contribute to motion wheel and first law discussion by offering my motion idea to talk about. I think it is like Maxwell's demon by transferring a faster weight with a slower weight. Hopefully after disclosing this idea I will have a year to seek out a patent if it is a good idea. I came across this idea by accident and I believe it was something I had in mind a long time ago before I got hit on the head.

The idea is: If the two separate wheels are connected and moving together the weight closer to the rim is moving faster because the path closer to the axle is always shorter. The weight transfers from the long path to the shorter path and the extra momentum of the longer path pushes on the wheel additional force.

Gravity is pulling on all weights equally from gravities perspective. When the weight is being pulled by gravity against a load from a weight closer to the axle there is more resistance against gravity than a weight further from the axle but the same amount of energy is being put into the weight by gravity. So from gravity's perspective there is extra energy left over for a weight further from the axle because of less load and in general a weight on an axle has extra energy from gravity because it can produce work. The energy would come from gravity but would be harnessed by taking motion into the wheel.

I think this is a great idea. The teleport concept basically is that as the wheel is turning if the weight from the outside can teleport instantly through the purple arrow and keep its velocity it will push more force on the wheel. The wheel is completely balanced against gravity other than this teleporting. Is this or is this not just like Maxwell's daemon? I really am going for Maxwell demon by sharing this I'm not posting my ideas into someone else's thread to change the subject, I think this idea is just like Maxwell's demon like you guys are talking about. Jim_Mich is not giving any details at this time, but here you go, I have. :-D Disclaimer: (If I misunderstood what Maxwell demon is then I've made a mistake. I do that from time to time.)

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Preoccuppied,
I see two main problems with your design!

1. The lifting of the weights.

2. There would be high friction when the weights move outward, the Centrifugal Force Vectors working against the rotating frame vectors, this design even if the wheel was driven and the weights were driven the design would have very poor efficiency.

It show your thinking though, so your half way there.
Regards, Trevor Lyn Whatford

Edit, do not get suckered in by the Ice skater, she does not do very well on the vertical plain, so you should be looking at your wheels moving on a horizontal plain. Thus remove the lifting, but replacing it with the work needed to move weights against CF.

[preoccupied]

Trevor,
Aren't you the guy working on an adaptation to murilo's avalanche drive? Please put extra effort into what you say to me as I might not be as smart as you are. I hope this contributes to the discussion and does not focus on the aspects of my design itself. This is supposed to be about the Maxwell demon. I think my design here that I shared is very similar concept, maybe a parallel of Maxwell demon to gravity wheels.

"1. The lifting of the weights" - The design is supposed to be nearly balanced. It should turn like a flywheel if no force is added to it.