Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[eccentrically1]

what are you quoting?
It isn't difficult to measure friction losses. Even WM2d can do that to some extent.

[agor95]

"The principle of Conservation of Energy (CoE)" is indeed one of the most fundamental observations in physics.

It can be useful in calculating the interactions of objects.
However it is a cornerstone that weighs heavy around our necks.

If you want a device too accelerate up to an operational rotation rate against friction.
Then you have to look for a deeper principle.

Of cause that was in one of Besslers clues.

Regards

[daxwc]

I am not quoting anything; whenever we can’t find were energy went we say it went somewhere we can’t or didn’t measure properly.


But since you want somebody else’s words here is ChatGPT on the issue of the two:

Conservation of Energy:
The "Conservation of Energy" (COE) is a fundamental principle in physics that states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant over time. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change forms or be transferred between different parts of the system.
The law of conservation of energy is based on the idea that energy is a conserved quantity in the universe. It plays a crucial role in understanding and describing the behavior of physical systems. The different forms of energy include:
1. Kinetic Energy (KE): The energy associated with the motion of an object.
2. Potential Energy (PE): The energy associated with the position or state of an object within a force field, such as gravitational potential energy or elastic potential energy.
3. Internal Energy: The energy associated with the microscopic motion and interactions of particles within a system.
4. Thermal Energy: The energy associated with the temperature of a system.
The total energy of a system is the sum of its kinetic energy, potential energy, and other relevant forms of energy. According to the law of conservation of energy, this total energy remains constant unless acted upon by external forces.
Mathematically, the conservation of energy can be expressed as:
Total Energy (initial)=Total Energy (final)Total Energy (initial)=Total Energy (final)
This principle is widely applied in various branches of physics and engineering, helping to analyze and predict the behavior of systems ranging from simple mechanical systems to complex thermodynamic and electromagnetic systems.

Gravitational Field Conservation: Changes in the distribution of mass can affect the gravitational field. According to general relativity, mass-energy density influences the curvature of spacetime, affecting the gravitational field. However, this is more about changes in the field than the conservation of gravity itself.

If you want an example if we roll a hoop up an incline and we restart moment of inertia every half turn all the way up it takes more energy that if we rolled the hoop up at a constant velocity.

[daxwc]

eccentrically1 :
It isn't difficult to measure friction losses. Even WM2d can do that to some extent.

If WM2d is anything like Algodoo when it gets confused it resets everything to gravitational potential energy at the time interval. That allows conservation of energy to be conserved in the SIM. Most of real life tests have shown it to be conserved anyway, if we had a gain we would have a wheel.

[daxwc]

Me: Conservation of energy in the universe is different than saying conservative gravity force. Gravity isn't even a set number as it changes with height. Usually anything with a differential can be made to do work.

ChatGPT:
You've raised some valid points regarding the nuances of the conservation of energy and the nature of gravitational forces. Let's clarify these aspects:

1. Conservation of Energy in the Universe:
• The conservation of energy in the universe, as a whole, is a fundamental principle grounded in the law of energy conservation. It asserts that the total energy within an isolated system remains constant over time. While energy can change forms within the system, the total energy content remains conserved.

2. Conservative Gravity Force:
• The term "conservative force" in physics refers to a force for which the work done in moving an object from one point to another is independent of the path taken. Gravity is considered a conservative force because the gravitational potential energy depends only on the initial and final positions of an object, not the path taken.

3. Variation of Gravity with Height:
• You rightly pointed out that gravity changes with height. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two masses. As an object moves away from a massive body, such as the Earth's surface, the force of gravity decreases. This variation is captured by the gravitational potential energy equation
.
4. Differential Work:
• Work done by a force is defined as the integral of force with respect to displacement. In the case of a conservative force, the work done is path-independent. While gravity is a conservative force, the work done in moving against gravity depends on the path taken.

In summary, the conservation of energy is a broad principle applicable to the entire universe, stating that the total energy within an isolated system remains constant. On the other hand, the term "conservative force" is specific to certain forces, like gravity, for which the work done is path-independent. While gravity is conservative, the work done against gravity can vary depending on the specific circumstances and path taken.

[Roxaway59]

When I first came on the forum the last I wanted to do was write about things that moved away from ideas that were not directly associated with mechanisms that might enable a wheel to go over unity. I felt that it would be a distraction and obviously I haven’t stuck to just posting about mechanisms.

The points that people are making about these scientific laws are important though and we should of course discuss anything that is relevant to what Bessler did.

Some people doubt Besslers honesty and that is a prudent thing to do when throughout history dishonest people have tried to make a fast buck by pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

We shouldn’t forget though that there are also dishonest scientists who are also only out to line their own pockets and don’t really care about truth as long as the money keeps rolling in.

More importantly there are is also a very long list of times throughout the ages when scientists have been proven wrong.

I once bought a book that was all about things associated with electronic light emitting devices. In that book it stated that scientists were now pretty certain that space contains absolutely nothing at all. I didn’t believe that for a second even though I am not a scientist. Something just told me that it wasn’t true.

I use to imagine an object moving through space and as we all know the faster it goes the heavier it becomes as its mass increases. The way I use to look at this is that the faster it goes the more it interacts with the particles in space that are popping in and out of existence. A little like driving down the motorway when its raining and colliding with more and more rain the faster you go. I don’t know if this is very scientific of me are not.

I don’t know a lot of the time if I am being very scientific or not but I do like asking questions so here is one. If there is such a thing as zero point energy that can be harnessed from the fabric of space can there be any such thing as a closed system?
Graham

[agor95]

I don’t know a lot of the time if I am being very scientific or not but I do like asking questions so here is one. If there is such a thing as zero point energy that can be harnessed from the fabric of space can there be any such thing as a closed system?

That is a good question and you deserve and answer. As you have been gracious having these esoteric distractions.

There are no closed systems. However people define what is in a 'system' then create mathematical models on this
abstraction. Which in turn produce approximation to 'reality'.

Space is not out there with these fluctuations. It is happening between the atoms used to type this post.

Regards

[Tarsier79]

Dax

Energy can be destroyed. It is destroyed in "perfect" sim world, where there is no heat, sound or (selected) deformity. IMO saying it is changed to heat or sound is a cop out. If it can be destroyed, surely the opposite can happen.

[eccentrically1]

I am not quoting anything; whenever we can’t find were energy went we say it went somewhere we can’t or didn’t measure properly.

Who is “we”? The research on this subject is well documented. People looking for PM are probably guilty of that, because they have to have some excuse for why they can’t find it.

If you want an example if we roll a hoop up an incline and we restart moment of inertia every half turn all the way up it takes more energy that if we rolled the hoop up at a constant velocity.

I know it does; but more importantly I understand why it does. Do you?

If WM2d is anything like Algodoo when it gets confused it resets everything to gravitational potential energy at the time interval. That allows conservation of energy to be conserved in the SIM. Most of real life tests have shown it to be conserved anyway, if we had a gain we would have a wheel.

So the reason sims can’t show pm is because they’re confused about where some missing energy went? Good luck with that.

Conservation of energy in the universe is different than saying conservative gravity force. Gravity isn't even a set number as it changes with height. Usually anything with a differential can be made to do work.

So we can get work out of objects at different heights in a gravity field? If only it were true, we would have a wheel.

[daxwc]

T79: Energy can be destroyed. It is destroyed in "perfect" sim world, where there is no heat, sound or (selected) deformity. IMO saying it is changed to heat or sound is a cop out. If it can be destroyed, surely the opposite can happen.

I am not exactly saying energy can be destroyed. I am saying there is times it leaves the accounting ledger. It can come back in different forms. There is no perfect SIM world.

For example nobody would have any problem if we (I said; since Ecc1 hates we) said the wheel worked through a combination of gravity pathway and static electricity.

No system is ever truly closed to the universe; therefore gravity and earth’s rotation are all fair game for example. Gravity and the universes rotation, there are a number of candidates.

[daxwc]

Ecc1:

dax wrote:
If you want an example if we roll a hoop up an incline and we restart moment of inertia every half turn all the way up it takes more energy that if we rolled the hoop up at a constant velocity.

I know it does; but more importantly I understand why it does. Do you?

You are right I don't believe their answer because they can't account for it. Telling me it left to friction isn't an answer when it is obvious it didn't go there.


The objects with same mass; a sphere and a hoop with the same radius going up a incline. Now using impulse momentum on the sphere and continuous restarting MOI on the hoop we get different energies it took to get the objects to the top. But at the top both only now have the same potential energy. I am not saying we gained energy but the energy ledger isn't equal.

[Tarsier79]

T79: Energy can be destroyed. It is destroyed in "perfect" sim world, where there is no heat, sound or (selected) deformity. IMO saying it is changed to heat or sound is a cop out. If it can be destroyed, surely the opposite can happen.

I am not exactly saying energy can be destroyed. I am saying there is times it leaves the accounting ledger. It can come back in different forms. There is no perfect SIM world.

By perfect sim world I meant no frictions, no air resistance, "perfect" mass interactions etc. Energy can 100% be destroyed in sim world.

My point it is difficult to measure an instant heat and sound, the energy they are at and confirm that is where the energy went. My feeling is when you see a collision where KE disappears, the heat and sound produced is not enough to account for the missing energy.

If energy can be destroyed, surely we can reverse the process? Even if it is only in sim world (obviously without resorting to overlap errors etc.)

[Fletcher]

Hey T79 - can you give your example of destroying energy in WM2D ? .. I can build the sim and put up an animation for everyone to see and consider your observations ..

[daxwc]

I don’t even care about SIM world we have all done this in real life. We have all lived the experience.

You fill up a wagon so much that you expend lots of energy to just move it. But if you get it going and keep momentum up it get easier to pull and lets say you run a 100 feet with it. What was the hardest part? The initial getting the inertia moving.

Now think instead of pulling it the whole hundred feet in one shot you pull it a foot and have to start off the inertia energy expenditure again. Now it takes a hundred of those hard pulls.

But both wagons only went a 100 feet; but you spent way more energy one wagon. Where does the hidden energy missing off the ledger reside?

[daxwc]

ChatGPT: The difference in energy expenditure between the two scenarios arises from the concept of work and the role of kinetic energy and inertia.

In the first scenario, where you get the wagon moving and maintain momentum for the entire 100 feet, you are able to take advantage of the kinetic energy gained during the initial effort. Once the wagon is in motion, it possesses kinetic energy, and the work required to keep it moving is generally less than the work needed to overcome the static friction and initiate motion.

In the second scenario, where you repeatedly start and stop the wagon, you're losing the benefit of the kinetic energy gained during the initial push each time you come to a stop. Starting the wagon from rest requires overcoming static friction, which often demands more work compared to maintaining motion.

Here's a breakdown:

Initial Push:

The hardest part is initiating motion, overcoming static friction, and giving the wagon kinetic energy.
Maintaining Momentum:

Once in motion, the wagon possesses kinetic energy. The work required to keep it moving is often less than the work needed for the initial push.
Repetitive Stops and Starts:

Bringing the wagon to a stop and starting it again requires overcoming static friction repeatedly, resulting in higher energy expenditure for each restart.
The difference in energy expenditure can be attributed to the fact that kinetic energy is not fully utilized when you repeatedly start and stop the wagon. In the scenario with continuous motion, the kinetic energy acquired during the initial push contributes to the overall motion, making it more energy-efficient.

This concept is analogous to the idea that maintaining a constant speed while driving a car on a flat road is more fuel-efficient than accelerating and decelerating frequently, as the latter involves overcoming inertia and kinetic energy losses during each acceleration phase.

Static friction stoled all my energy? It wasn't even inertia?