Ralph, I am offended by your disregard for mathematics. If you had done calculations on many of you own OB wheels, perhaps you would understand the mathematical beauty of gravity and mass in that field.
Bessler called himself a mathematician. I suspect he could mathematically prove why his wheel worked.
Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"
Moderator: scott
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
Tarsier, you say that it has been proven mathematically that gravity is a conservative force. Please post a link.
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
Work = force × distance.
Gravity, at any specific location on Earth, and with any specific mass will produce a specific amount of force. We call this the force of gravity.
Work produced by a falling weight = Mass × Gravity_force × Fall_Distance.
Work required to raise a weight = Mass × Gravity_force × Rise_Distance.
Since Mass and Gravity_Force are equal and since Fall_Distance and Rise_Distance are equal and opposite, the Work produced by falling is equal and opposite the work required to raise the weight back up.
If the situation is made more complicated by leveraging, then one or more of the three variables must changed. Gravity_Force is constant and cannot change unless you leave the Earth. Levers have specific ratios. If you change the leverage ratio then the Mass and the Distance change inversely. Feed any change back into the formula of Work = force × distance and the falling work done always equals the rising work required.
There are probably hundreds of physics websites that will present this, but usually it will be presented in a much more complex fashion making it much harder to understand.
Gravity, at any specific location on Earth, and with any specific mass will produce a specific amount of force. We call this the force of gravity.
Work produced by a falling weight = Mass × Gravity_force × Fall_Distance.
Work required to raise a weight = Mass × Gravity_force × Rise_Distance.
Since Mass and Gravity_Force are equal and since Fall_Distance and Rise_Distance are equal and opposite, the Work produced by falling is equal and opposite the work required to raise the weight back up.
If the situation is made more complicated by leveraging, then one or more of the three variables must changed. Gravity_Force is constant and cannot change unless you leave the Earth. Levers have specific ratios. If you change the leverage ratio then the Mass and the Distance change inversely. Feed any change back into the formula of Work = force × distance and the falling work done always equals the rising work required.
There are probably hundreds of physics websites that will present this, but usually it will be presented in a much more complex fashion making it much harder to understand.
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
I am sorry if some are offended due to my disregard for mathematics.
It is not a disregard but a lack of knowledge due to a phobia, not unlike some people being scared of spiders or high heights. For me simple algebra is like flashing a red light into the eyes of an epileptic.
Developed during my freshman year of high school while taking a mandatory class of basic algebra. I had a young teacher fresh out of college and little patience in a class of 32 students. If you could not keep up you just sat there, as he would not give you any personal tutoring.
For one whole school term, I sat looking out the window or designing what I wished to build in the machine shop. At the end of the season the above teacher gave me a passing grade. I asked him why, when he had given me an "F" daily. His response was: I passed you so that I will not have to put up with you next fall.
Since, I have learned to forward my education relying on aptitude and text books with mathematical tables where I can look up the answer. Simple calculations I can do in my head. At my side as I write this is an Audel publication of tables and data. If I wish to know the area of a circle all I have to do is flip a page.
With this method I was able to gain recognition and certificates for structural mechanics and mechanical engineering. Some where around here I also have teaching certificates (obviously not for math) The last schooling I received was at the US army Corps proving and experimental labs in Vicksburg Mississippi. There were 15 attendees and all but three of us held doctorate degrees.
There are times like the present when not knowing math while looking for the unknown has its advantages!
Jim_Mich' posts above is a prime example, he still does not understand that recoverable Pe is not in a mathematical solution, it's the hindrance keeping him from opening his mind!
Ralph
It is not a disregard but a lack of knowledge due to a phobia, not unlike some people being scared of spiders or high heights. For me simple algebra is like flashing a red light into the eyes of an epileptic.
Developed during my freshman year of high school while taking a mandatory class of basic algebra. I had a young teacher fresh out of college and little patience in a class of 32 students. If you could not keep up you just sat there, as he would not give you any personal tutoring.
For one whole school term, I sat looking out the window or designing what I wished to build in the machine shop. At the end of the season the above teacher gave me a passing grade. I asked him why, when he had given me an "F" daily. His response was: I passed you so that I will not have to put up with you next fall.
Since, I have learned to forward my education relying on aptitude and text books with mathematical tables where I can look up the answer. Simple calculations I can do in my head. At my side as I write this is an Audel publication of tables and data. If I wish to know the area of a circle all I have to do is flip a page.
With this method I was able to gain recognition and certificates for structural mechanics and mechanical engineering. Some where around here I also have teaching certificates (obviously not for math) The last schooling I received was at the US army Corps proving and experimental labs in Vicksburg Mississippi. There were 15 attendees and all but three of us held doctorate degrees.
There are times like the present when not knowing math while looking for the unknown has its advantages!
Jim_Mich' posts above is a prime example, he still does not understand that recoverable Pe is not in a mathematical solution, it's the hindrance keeping him from opening his mind!
Ralph
Do you understand how ignorant and insulting your statement is?? You just offended me again! Don't get personal Ralph, or I'll verbally rip your stupid statements to shreds. OK?Ralph wrote:Jim_Mich' posts above is a prime example, he still does not understand that recoverable Pe is not in a mathematical solution, it's the hindrance keeping him from opening his mind!
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
As a possible aid to the forming of a final determination, the following maxim of law might be found of some use:
Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquerere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibus rerem dependet.
"In order to rightly comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names." - Co. Lit. 68.
I just love this one, imagining it being chanted most reverently by brother monks, in very dim candle light.
James
Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquerere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibus rerem dependet.
"In order to rightly comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names." - Co. Lit. 68.
I just love this one, imagining it being chanted most reverently by brother monks, in very dim candle light.
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
Perhaps a difference between chanting monks and chanting physicists is that the latter sit in their dimly lit rooms waiting for more data while the former sit in their dimly lit rooms waiting for no more data :D
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
Math is the language of the universe, Ralph.
Geometry speaks to the impossibility of a perpetual motion wheel.
Misconception of 3 basic concepts - energy, force and leverage if you ignore the geometry of the universe - leads to a belief in a PM wheel, depending on what type of PM is being discussed.
Any type of PMM would either have to create its own energy, break the law of levers or Newton's laws of motion, which has never been, and never will be, done; not even in an accelerating frame of reference , Jim.
Every example in history has been exposed as fraud; drawing energy externally, or from internal storage. Machines like the Cox clock that have an external energy source don't fit the definition of PM, they are environmental engines, specifically, solar powered. Most energy is solar derived, exceptions being geothermal engines for example.*
If one tries to hide the external conversion of energy his machine is utilizing, it's fraud. If one doesn't, it's not PM anyway! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If one has an internal source stored, springs, weights, chemicals, batteries, etc., it's not PM, it's just an ordinary mechanical engine.
*Which are solar powered in a sense, as the earth would freeze without the sun.
Geometry speaks to the impossibility of a perpetual motion wheel.
Misconception of 3 basic concepts - energy, force and leverage if you ignore the geometry of the universe - leads to a belief in a PM wheel, depending on what type of PM is being discussed.
Any type of PMM would either have to create its own energy, break the law of levers or Newton's laws of motion, which has never been, and never will be, done; not even in an accelerating frame of reference , Jim.
Every example in history has been exposed as fraud; drawing energy externally, or from internal storage. Machines like the Cox clock that have an external energy source don't fit the definition of PM, they are environmental engines, specifically, solar powered. Most energy is solar derived, exceptions being geothermal engines for example.*
If one tries to hide the external conversion of energy his machine is utilizing, it's fraud. If one doesn't, it's not PM anyway! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If one has an internal source stored, springs, weights, chemicals, batteries, etc., it's not PM, it's just an ordinary mechanical engine.
*Which are solar powered in a sense, as the earth would freeze without the sun.
Last edited by eccentrically1 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
Jim_Mich,
I did not intend my remark to be either insulting, fastidious or taken personal, it was meant to be an example, not unlike Bessler stating: "adding more weights only make the wheel heavier, it would run better without them.
My point is that by your own math, your mathematically proof, that leverage cannot do the expected. So we must forgo that train of thought and move on, either ignoring the math or levers.
Tidal turbines, tidal reservoirs, creating power at peak demand. A ship puts out to sea on the outgoing tide as it consumes less energy.
As the tide rises or is coming in, it displaces land mass previously above water level, would you consider this "Leverage"?
Now hypothetically imagine if you can, just the opposite. Instead of the tide coming in we remove some of the land mass or a barrier below water level. The water will then fill this void with great force to the point of its own level. What mathematical equation involving levers is utilized in this process?
Ralph
I did not intend my remark to be either insulting, fastidious or taken personal, it was meant to be an example, not unlike Bessler stating: "adding more weights only make the wheel heavier, it would run better without them.
My point is that by your own math, your mathematically proof, that leverage cannot do the expected. So we must forgo that train of thought and move on, either ignoring the math or levers.
Lets forget about the geometry of force and leverage for a moment and discuss a natural gravity effected phenomenon known as "Tidal changes". I am sure you will oblige me by agreeing that this is gravity in nature doing "Work", If not then I have a problem!Geometry speaks to the impossibility of a perpetual motion wheel.
Misconception of 3 basic concepts - energy, force and leverage if you ignore the geometry of the universe - leads to a belief in a PM wheel, depending on what type of PM is being discussed.
Tidal turbines, tidal reservoirs, creating power at peak demand. A ship puts out to sea on the outgoing tide as it consumes less energy.
As the tide rises or is coming in, it displaces land mass previously above water level, would you consider this "Leverage"?
Now hypothetically imagine if you can, just the opposite. Instead of the tide coming in we remove some of the land mass or a barrier below water level. The water will then fill this void with great force to the point of its own level. What mathematical equation involving levers is utilized in this process?
Ralph
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
re: Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theo
Tides are part of a system that includes the moon; two bodies orbiting each other. Imagine a bar between the moon and the earth. Would there be tidal changes?gravity in nature doing "Work"