The Bessler Curse

[rlortie]

Say, I have a five axle spring suspended semi truck and trailer. Its empty weight is 28,000 pounds. I load it with 54,000 pound of payload bringing me to 82,000 pounds, the legal limit. Now if the springs have gained in mass, who is paying for the extra weight bill. :-)

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Jim...

You are, of course, free to "punch" my or anybody else's red button if it will give you satisfaction. However, that will not deter me in the least from advocating the truth as I see it about how Bessler's wheels may have operated. I still believe that my interpretation of how such a device can manage to output usable energy to its environment is the correct one and more in harmony with the relativity physics of the early 20th century.

You know, one of the reasons that Einstein went on to develop his revolutionary theories was because of the failure of the ether model to rationalize the growing body of observational data at the time.



Jonathan...

After reading your last post, it is now I who am starting to think that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the elementary concepts of relativity theory.

I went to Google and found many sites that accurately go into these issues. Here is just a small fraction of what I found:


At http://askascientist.binghamton.edu/sep ... 04ask.html a professor emeritus of physics at Binghamton University writes:

Similarly, when anything burns in a fire, if we could measure all the masses involved before and after the fire, we would see a miniscule loss of mass, corresponding to the amount of energy released by the fire as chemical changes in atomic electron energies occur. But more spectacularly, if the nuclei of atoms change, for instance if a uranium nucleus is broken into two or more smaller nuclei (a process called nuclear fission), or if say, two hydrogen nuclei get so closely pushed together that they "fuse" into a single nucleus of perhaps deuterium or helium, (nuclear fusion), the total masses involved will decrease by amounts which although still small, are much larger than mass decreases for chemical fires, releasing enormous amounts of energy, but still given by E = mc2, where m is the amount of mass decrease.

The implication of this is, as I stated earlier, that when we put energy into a system, its rest mass will increase and when we extract energy from a system, it's rest mass will decrease. But, these changes in mass are very small.



At http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter1.html sample problems are solved that show how the Earth being lowered back into its orbit in the Sun's gravity field and a hydrogen atom being lowered from one floor to a lower one in the Earth's gravity field both lose a portion of their rest masses.

The question is: How can the Earth not lose one single atom or molecule while 29 billions of millions of kilograms of mass have been lost and received at the center of the galaxy? There is only one logical answer. Since each atom on Earth was submitted to the force of the rope, each atom has lost mass in a proportion of approximately one part per one hundred million.

Due to the principle of mass-energy conservation, we must conclude that a hydrogen atom at rest has a less massive electron and a less massive proton at a lower altitude than at a higher altitude.

I won't belabor the point by quoting more. The point is that objects such as weighs DO LOSE a tiny portion of their rest masses when they drop in a gravity field. This mass that is lost must either show up somewhere else as mass or as energy. In the case of Bessler's wheels, I still firmly adhere to the believe that his remarkable self shifting weight mechanism created a situation within the wheel that allowed it to continuously convert minute amounts of the rest masses of the device's weights directly into mechanical energy.


Steve asks:

Now, I take the "C" clamp and use it to compress the spring and then weigh that...I will see an increase in weight?

Yes, the rest mass of the spring will increase. But, you will not be able to accurately measure it because it will be very, very small.


ken

[Jonathan]

Your second quote, from Paul Marmet, is worthless: he argues that relativity is wrong.
Your other source seems good, but I think he is somewhat mistaken, most if not all the energy of fire comes from the loss of electrostatic potential energy.
You have yet to address my question, if rest mass changes, then why is it listed in tables?

[ken_behrendt]

Jonathan writes:

Your other source seems good, but I think he is somewhat mistaken, most if not all the energy of fire comes from the loss of electrostatic potential energy.

True, the exothermic energy of a fire does come from a combination of the net loss of electrostatic potential energy and kinetic energies of the charged subatomic particles involved as the chemical bonds are broken and formed. However, just as in the case of gravitational potential energy losses, the loss of electrostatic potential energy by an electrically charged particle also results in the loss of the rest mass of the particle involved.

The rest masses of subatomic particles refer only to that portion of mass they have that is not determined by their velocity and assumes that they are stationary "free" particles not involved in electrostatic or strong/weak force interactions with each other. When they are located inside of atoms, however, the situation can become different.

Whenever energy is extracted from a system, the masses of the particles in that system must decrease and whenever energy is added to a system, the masses of the particles in that system must increase. If this was not true, then the Conservation of Energy/Mass Principle would not be valid.

In my hypothesis to rationalize the source for the energy that Bessler's wheels were able to output, I am concerned with what is happening to the rest masses of the weights involved. However, if a whole weight loses some of its rest mass as the wheel rotates, then, of course, the many individual subatomic particles that compose that weight must also each be losing a similar percentage of rest mass. Actually, I am not sure if they would all lose the exact same percentage of rest mass unless there is some sort of equipartition process at work on the subatomic level.


ken

[Jonathan]

Conservation of mass-energy is not violated by giving energy to an object without an ensuing increase in the mass of the object. The object simply possesses the energy.
>The rest masses of subatomic particles refer only to that portion of mass they have that is not determined by their velocity and assumes that they are stationary "free" particles not involved in electrostatic or strong/weak force interactions with each other.<
That doesn't make any sense; if it were true, then rest mass would be unknowable. To measure anything, you must interact with it. If interactions alter rest mass, then how can you measure what it would be if it were utterly isolated?

[ken_behrendt]

Well, if one extracts energy from a system, then, according to E=mc^2, that energy has a certain amount of mass associated with it. Since mass must be conserved, that would mean that the system must now be missing that mass and would thus be less massive. This whole concept was also very confusing to me when I first encountered it. The problem occurs when we try to think of energy and mass as separate entities. Relativity theory requires us to think of them as different aspects of the same thing. Not an easy task for someone used to Newtonian physics.

You also asked:

If interactions alter rest mass, then how can you measure what it would be if it were utterly isolated?

Determining the rest masses of subatomic particles can be a complex endeavor. Most of these values one sees in charts were determined via theoretical calculations or extrapolations from experimental measurements. On the microscopic scale, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing both the momentum and location of subatomic particles with precision. There is another version that also says that we can not know both the energy and time duration of a microscopic event with precision. This problem of precision is not just related to the quality of the equipment used. Rather, it seems that certain amount of imprecision is "built" into the universe at the subatomic level. I do not like many of the conclusions reached by either Relativity theory or Quantum physics, but I can not see any way around them...at least not for the present.


ken

[AgingYoung]

An idea that a gravity powered wheel is making use of some energy source other than a difference in torque between different moments in the wheel makes more assumptions than are really necessary to explain the power that turns a wheel. There's way too much imagination going on there than necessary. I think that imagineation might be better directed toward whirled peas.

Gene

[Jonathan]

>according to E=mc^2, that energy has a certain amount of mass associated with it.<
No, it tells how much mass or energy is generated when the other is converted into it. But moving energy from one object to another doesn't force the energy to become mass. As I said before, photons are not known to have mass, but they have energy.
Ken, your other point didn't make any sense. The uncertainties do allow you to know the mass of a particle when you know essentially nothing about its momentum, energy, or location.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/analysis/mas ... works.html
The mass/charge ratio derived from the above experiment is always the same, no matter that different mass spectrometers accelerate the particles to different speeds. This means that both mass and charge are physical constants, or that the both change with speed in such a way as to cancel out.

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

An idea that a gravity powered wheel is making use of some energy source other than a difference in torque between different moments in the wheel makes more assumptions than are really necessary to explain the power that turns a wheel.

Well, there could be many ways to create a net torque in a wheel to make it move. However, in the case of a working gravity wheel, one must ultimately rationalize where the energy it outputs is coming from. Since energy and mass are two aspects of the same thing, I have come to the conclusion that the energy put out by Bessler's wheels must have come from the rest masses of the weights inside of the wheels.

Actually, I am convinced that any object that is lowered in a gravity field will lose some of its rest mass and convert it into kinetic energy while any object that is raised in a gravity field must be supplied with energy and will experience a gain in rest mass. Bessler's wheels were able to extract more rest mass from their weights during their descent than were restored to them during their ascent. This descrepancy means that, during each rotation, the weights experienced a net decrease in rest mass which is equivalent to saying that the kinetic energy of the wheel would increase. This energy of the wheel could then be used to do small amounts of work in the wheel's environment.


Jonathan wrote:

But moving energy from one object to another doesn't force the energy to become mass.

Actually, I think you are wrong about this. I've included some more links that go into some of these issues:


http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

The most important result of a general character to which the special theory of relativity has led is concerned with the conception of mass. Before the advent of relativity, physics recognised two conservation laws of fundamental importance, namely, the law of the conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass; these two fundamental laws appeared to be quite independent of each other. By means of the theory of relativity they have been united into one law. We shall now briefly consider how this unification came about, and what meaning is to be attached to it.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theor ... ivity.html

Probably the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2.

This tells us the energy corresponding to a mass m at rest. What this means is that when mass disappears, for example in a nuclear fission process, this amount of energy must appear in some other form. It also tells us the total energy of a particle of mass m sitting at rest.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... _mass.html

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?" this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Mass.html

Energy will increase if mass decreases; mass can be turned into energy. If the mass increases, energy must be supplied; energy can be turned into mass. Mass and energy are interchangeable. Mass and energy are the same thing.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity2.htm

What is this equation actually telling us? Mathematically, since the speed of light is constant, an increase or decrease in the system's rest mass is proportional to an increase or decrease in the system's energy. If this relationship is then combined with the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass, an equivalence can be formed. This equivalence results in one law for the conservation of energy and mass.

The bottom line is that energy and mass are the same thing. When we increase the energy of a system by transferring energy to it, we also increase its mass. Quite fortunately, this increase in mass is usually negligible on the macroscopic level or we would to deal with some really weird problems in our world!


ken

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

Actually, I am convinced that any object that is lowered in a gravity field will lose some of its rest mass and convert it into kinetic energy while any object that is raised in a gravity field must be supplied with energy and will experience a gain in rest mass.

If that is the case you could measure it without a gravity wheel. If you weighed something as it was being raised in a very controlled environment and with very sensitive equipment it could be known if the mass gains 'rest' mass. What happens when an object is raised and gains that rest mass then is stopped at that particular elevation? Does it retain that gain?

Frankly I think that energy can be created. There is energy that supplies an electrical circuit. What that does is create a difference of potential between the source and ground. That is the electromotive force (emf) that causes electron flow and the circuit is powered.

You will find that a working gravity wheel uses gravity to position the weights thereby adjusting the torque at both the top and the bottom of the wheel. When that difference of torque is present the wheel will turn. Gravity causes the weights to set and reset. You'll never be able to measure any change of any sort of mass in those weights.

You will find in a working wheel that as the weights set at the top and accelerate that the force is increased and as they decelerate at the bottom force (in the form of torque) is lessened. The explanation is in the simple equation F=m*a. Mass is a constant. To vary force you have to vary acceleration. When that happens you will create energy or a difference of torques. No where near the level that God did yet you will create.

Gene

ps edit: If you can't measure it then there's no way to substantiate the claim; there's no empirical data to back it up.

Quite fortunately, this increase in mass is usually negligible on the macroscopic level or we would to deal with some really weird problems in our world!

[Jonathan]

Most of your quotes don't contradict me, and one is mistaken.
>You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.<
It would be even more correct to say that the light contributes to the apparent mass of the box.
>Mathematically, since the speed of light is constant, an increase or decrease in the system's rest mass is proportional to an increase or decrease in the system's energy.<
This is true but I think you've misinterpreted it, the rest mass only changes with nuclear reactions.

[rlortie]

A resting mass does gain weight doesn't it ken. I have gained almost twenty pounds since my forced retirement. I believe I have been resting to much!

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

If that is the case you could measure it without a gravity wheel. If you weighed something as it was being raised in a very controlled environment and with very sensitive equipment it could be known if the mass gains 'rest' mass. What happens when an object is raised and gains that rest mass then is stopped at that particular elevation? Does it retain that gain?

Unfortunately, it's not that easy in practice to measure the change in rest mass due to changes in height within a gravity field. Remember that one gram of rest mass is equivalent to about 9 x 10^20 ergs or 9 x 10^13 joules. That's a tremendous amount of energy. This means one must then extract an enormous amount of energy from an object in order to see its mass change by 1 gram. If one could, like Superman, lift and lower a mountain range and was able to accurately measure its weight at different positions, then its change in rest mass could be easily seen.

However, for most average sized objects that are raised and lowered in the Earth's gravity field in a laboratory, the change in their rest masses will be so minute as to be undetectable by even our most sensitive balances. This does not mean, though, that such a change is not taking place and accounting for changes in the gravitational potential energy of the object.

Yes, when you raise an object in a gravity field and it stops, it will retain that increase in rest mass that it experiences.


Jonathan...

It seems that you are still resisting the relativistic interpretation of how rest mass varies with the change in energy of a system. Perhaps the following references will be of help to you:


http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harr ... nergy.html

As you probably know, there are other forms of energy than just the rest energy and the kinetic energy. There is heat energy, chemical energy, binding energies of atoms and nuclei, etc. etc. It turns out that all forms of energy are reflected in the total mass of the body. So although we have justified E = mc2 in terms of the kinetic energy, mass-energy equivalence is quite a bit more general.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

So, for example, according to pre-relativistic physics the mass of the block of gold discussed above must remain the same as it is heated. However, as we have seen, this is not the case in relativistic physics, because the energy absorbed by the block of gold contributes to an increase in its rest-mass. Similarly, Newtonian physics predicts that mass is conserved when the meteor crashes into the earth in the above example. However, according to relativistic physics, some of the mass is radiated away as energy in the form of heat. In both of these examples, it is the total mass and energy of the entire system that is conserved in these interactions. In general, in SR physical interactions no longer satisfy the two classical conservation principles separately. Instead, these two principles are fused into a single principle: the principle of conservation of mass-energy.

Ralph...

I can certainly identify with what you wrote. During much of the fall and winter of '04, I was forced to lay on a couch through much of the day and was just too incapacitated from chronic Hg poisoning to move around too much. As a result I developed a nice little 20 lb "spare tire" that I am still trying to get rid of. Before my illness, I had a 33 inch waist. Now, I am too embarassed to even give the number out! But, I hope to lose it before the end of this year...


ken

[AgingYoung]

However, for most average sized objects that are raised and lowered in the Earth's gravity field in a laboratory, the change in their rest masses will be so minute as to be undetectable by even our most sensitive balances. This does not mean, though, that such a change is not taking place and accounting for changes in the gravitational potential energy of the object.

I think I understand now. It exists yet we just can't see it. Now I got it. Kind of like that proverbial check that is in the mail...

Gene

I'd like to announce that I do have a working gravity wheel. It's just moving so fast you can't see it. It doesn't cast a shadow either.

ps edit: I've made 333 posts. There's a high likelyhood that's my limit and I'll only read this forum from now on.

[rlortie]

Steve, what was the name of that university we both attended, I have forgotten a couple of beers ago. Any way I remember learning something about gravity.

We have those that claim a mass will get heavier when raised. But yet if I raise it high enough it will become so heavy that it will float around in space. I guess it is no longer considered resting.

One can go from positive gravity here on the surface to zero gravity in orbit. So therefore gravity has gradient and anything with gradient has potential.

But now I am lead to believe that a raising object gets heavier as gravity gets weaker! Now I know why them planes fly so high. They get so heavy that they seek less gravity. 30 to 40,000 feet must be the sweet spot. ;)

Ralph