The Bessler Curse

[SeaWasp]

Yes.. I can see how Einstonian Physics etc, would be a "Bessler Curse"... If Bessler contemplated e=mc² too much, his wheel would still be in his imagination.. :-)

Ralph.. Touché! LOL!

[Jonathan]

Ken, I think both those quotes are poorly phrased. The rest mass doesn't change, it is a function of the number, types, and constants of the particles. Giving energy to an object does increase the apparent mass in theory because energy itself has inertia. But the amount of etherial whatever that is condensed in the form of matter in the object is the same as it was before.

[ken_behrendt]

Jonathan wrote:

The rest mass doesn't change, it is a function of the number, types, and constants of the particles.

Well, what more can I say? I've produced a variety of sources, including a Professor Emeritus of physics at a major university that says it does.

Yes, rest mass is determined in a gravity field free object (that is stationary with respect to an outside observer) by the total quantity of particles in the object. But, if we are to accept the validity of the Conservation of Mass / Energy Principle, then the rest masses of those individual particles must be variable.

and:

But the amount of etherial whatever that is condensed in the form of matter in the object is the same as it was before.

Hmmm...your starting to sound like Jim with his ether approach to matter!


I guess the bottom line of all of this is that each of us must come to his own understanding of how a gravity wheel would work. In the simplest analysis which would satisfy about 99/100 inventors, it runs continuously because one side is perpetually heavier than the other due to some remarkable mechanism.

My short term goal is to find that mechanism, if possible. Rationalizing the effect it produces will, I am confident, provide much discussion for the physicists of tomorrow...


ken

[AgingYoung]

I have a final point I'd like to make. Most people are content to have others think for them. I'm not singling out Ken for any other reason than he posted a recent example of this.

Jim...
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.

The implication of this is, ...

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

The actual implication of this is that the process you're proposing isn't humanly possible to accomplish. The good professor qualified the process with a huge 'if'. 'If' is the the word you use to indicate your speculations. If you actually know something you can support it with more definitive terms. If you're going to appeal to authority you should at least understand the line of reasoning that authority uses to come to the grand conclusions they have. If frogs had evolved wings they wouldn't bump their arses every time they hopped. If you can't accomplish the process you might as well save your breath concerning any conclusion you would like to come to.

I make the point of the fallacy of appeal to authority for this reason. We're told by 'higher' authority that creation isn't possible; that matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed, they can only be changed in form. That's a faulty conclusion. That conclusion was arrived at based on the fact that it had never been accomplished as far as the proposer knew. Several dunderheads on this forum are 'in search of a principle' that would cause a wheel to turn. If you don't manipulate the mass in a wheel it just sits there. If a wheel is going to turn you're going to have to manipulate the mass and generate some energy. If you want to continue to imagine that you can't create energy and try to explain where that energy was swiped from that's your business.

When people consider evolution they imagine 'how could that happen?', or 'by what mechanism is that possible?' To create energy there is indeed a mechanism. There is a way to accomplish it. An implication of this is that creative acts are possible. You perhaps are wondering 'what is this mechanism?'; if it's possible just plainly state it. Very good question. Discovery begins with asking good questions.

Gene

ps edit: Fellow cranks and crackpots lend me your ear. Insanity is blindly following the same tired faulty speculations yet expecting a different result. Also, don't take yourselves too seriously. You are a crank after all.

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

To create energy there is indeed a mechanism.

I would have to strongly disagree with this statement!

The reason that I brought up this whole business of how the rest mass of an object can vary with its position in a gravity field in the first place was so that I could offer a way for a gravity wheel to output energy without having to create it and thereby violate one of the most recognized and immutable laws of physics...the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

To this you responded with:

The actual implication of this is that the process you're proposing isn't humanly possible to accomplish.

If what I am proposing was not possible, then a falling object would experince no increase in velocity and such things as nuclear reactions would be impossible.

However, while I have no doubt that the effect I've described is physically real, I did not intend to suggest that it could be used to create the imbalance that would drive a working gravity wheel. That, obviously, is not possible when we are talking about such minute changes in mass (and the weight associated with it) of the weights moving around in a gravity wheel. I proposed this effect only in an effort to rationalize where the energy such a wheel would output could come from without having to suggest that the wheel was creating energy out of nothing. What I have proposed allows the wheel to tap an "onboard" source of energy that is not obvious, but is, nonetheless, still present.


ken

[Jonathan]

Ken, matter and energy is made of the same stuff. But what is the stuff? The stuff is so fundamental that it cannot be defined by anything physical, it is the basis for all physical definitions. Therefore all we can do is call it stuff and etherial-whatever.

[james kelly]

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Mr. Kelly...sounds like your having fun...can I ride next? lol


Steve

[ken_behrendt]

Jonathan writes:

Ken, matter and energy is made of the same stuff. But what is the stuff? The stuff is so fundamental that it cannot be defined by anything physical, it is the basis for all physical definitions. Therefore all we can do is call it stuff and etherial-whatever.

To tell you the truth, I do not know what matter and/or energy are "made of". I think one of my college physics professors answered this question by saying something like matter was anything that had mass and that energy was the difference between two "states" of matter. I think he forgot about the relativity matter/energy equivalence business on that day!



I think that what the great mathematicial John von Neumann said about math to a young physicist struggling to solve a differential equation via the method of characteristics can apply equally well to all of science. It was something like "Young man, in mathematics we never really understand anything...we simply get used to it!".


ken

[AgingYoung]

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Latest post at the Randi Site.

[ken_behrendt]

Gene, on the Randi site you wrote:

Last night as I was putting my insane notions aside to get some sleep I had an other idea. I thought if I could combine two of these mechanisms would that be a solution? To my total amazement while trying to accomplish something different I noticed the precise thing I've been looking for.

Well, it sounds like you are onto something really BIG this time. Can you share any of it with us or are you keeping it secret for the time being?


ken

[Michael]

Your professor was absolutely right Ken.

I think one of my college physics professors answered this question by saying something like matter was anything that had mass and that energy was the difference between two "states" of matter.

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

I don't blame you for asking but you should already know I'm not saying. Some people on this forum have said that if they could solve this problem they would put it into the public domain. I wonder how they would feel about someone taking their idea and making an inexpensive model to demonstrate to Randi. Would they want some of that action?

I have a partner and our agreement is that whoever can make a gravity wheel we'd split what we could get from it. He's the first reason I began to look at this idea. Although this is the result of my thoughts if it manages to work and I can win the Randi my friend gets 1/2 of it.

There is something I can say. As you've been trying to figure out how to make a wheel you have a very specific goal, that is to find a way to keep the cog to one side of the axis. The idea of making a wheel is too broad of a goal. People even attempting it have to come to some very specific conclusions on how to do that. That's what I think you've done and it's what I've done. I have specific ideas with specific consequences that I'm attempting to model.

If you can accomplish your goal I can't see why that wouldn't cause a wheel to turn. Seawasp made the point that a cog shift isn't what it might seem and I agree with that. I think a working wheel will definitely shift cog yet ultimately it's the torque on that axis that is the final judge. A wheel is like a dynamic balance or an analog computer that moment by moment adds up all the forces and gives you an answer. The way my friend puts it is 'a wheel that seeks balance thru motion.' I think that's what we're all looking for and I might be on the verge of it.

As I always say, we'll see.

Gene

ps edit: I would also like to say that anything significant that I have concerning anything I'm doing with this wheel is in the form of a hand written (or drawing) hard copy or in inexpensive models in my office. I have nothing significant on this computer concerning what I really think.

[graham]

Some people on this forum have said that if they could solve this problem they would put it into the public domain. I wonder how they would feel about someone taking their idea and making an inexpensive model to demonstrate to Randi

Hi Gene, who is this Randi fellow anway ? Where is his offer made ?
It seems to me that if someone were to go public with the solution , possibly here on these boards or maybe a personal website then there would be proof positive HE was the first (aside from Bessler) to have found it again and not the prize claimant.

Graham

[AgingYoung]

Graham,
It's not a matter of who's idea it is from Randi's perspective. It's a matter of who enters his contest proving that gravity isn't a conservative force. If you click on the randi link above that will take you to his site. Also there's a thread I started here that has some discussion about Randi.

Gene

ps edit: The Randi is a million dollar prize. Although you could prove it was your idea if you didn't enter the contest you'd be s.o.l.