Why Perpetual Motion Machines Are Impossible.

[Fletcher]

So then Michael your position would put you firmly in Bill's camp as to their motive force ? i.e. There was/is no possibility of 'something for nothing' PM [many of us agree that the dictionary definition of PM is grossly misleading].

Yet there is no doubt that Bessler's wheels existed ! So lets get on & find what it was.

[wikiwheel]

Michael, you missed the whole point I've been trying to make. When an object spins then what does it spin "relative to"?

To its fixed central point. It's fixed point is not a universal absolute. It is not absolute space because that point is not unalterable.

To make it simple, suppose the universe was completely empty.

When the object spins how can you tell it is spinning? In relationship to what? There is no fixed central point. It has no fixed point at all.

There is no CF without space.

CF is termed a "fictitious" force anyway, without all this knashing of teeth about reference points.
It doesn't need a reference point, only an object constrained to an orbit.

Mik

[Michael]

I agree that Bill's view is correct if the Bessler story is solid. Yes.

Which is fascinating unto itself because it would have to be very unique and efficient. Bills approach of using a rooms thermal gradient is intriguing, personally I don't know what conditions or forms are needed to make use of it and to make it efficient.

[jim_mich]

If that were true then you could easily prove it by spinning a gyroscope here on the earth and taking micron measurements at various locations on the curve of the spinning mass, relative to the station holding the gyroscope. Since the earth is in motion it would show a force greater in one direction that the other. It won't. You can only measure acceleration. you can only measure uniform velocity with a relative observation point, where ever it is.

Do you have proof? Has anyone tried such an experiment? It could be relatively simple to do. Use a stress gauge to measure CF tension on the rim of a spinning object. Connect the gauge to a suitable battery powered radio transmiter in the center of the object along with some rotational orientation sensing circuitry. The stress gauge needs to be accurate enough to sense the CF stress multiple times during each rotation of the object. The objects radius might need to be large in order to provide more CF at lower speeds in order to have enough time between measurements. The path traced by the sensing gauge will be a series of ellipses and not true circles. If the whole mechanism is traveling relative to absolute space then the absolute curve that the sensor travels at one side of the rotation MUST be different than on the other side of the rotation. If the CF doesn't vary then we have just broken the laws of physics!

[Michael]

Please define this place of absolute space you speak of in relation to the gyroscope. Is it traveling with the gyroscope? Is it the center of rotation we were talking about before? If so and if the gyroscope is traveling at a uniform linear velocity and measurements were taken from this place then no difference ellipses will be noted and no laws of physics are broken.

I'll ask you the same, do you have proof? If you did that would change physics and you would prove modern physics wrong.

There's a simpler way to prove what I'm saying. Get a stop watch, a gyroscope, you, and place all three in a car. Have someone drive straight at a uniform velocity. Spin the gyroscope and make sure its capable of staying at that speed. Time how long it takes a point on the gyroscope to travel from the front of the car to the back of the car, and how long it takes it to travel from the back of the car to the front of the car ( all relative to you ). If what your saying is true there will be a time difference between the two. But there won't be.

[jim_mich]

Absolute space is the background matix as determined and defined by CF, as per Newton's bucket concept. Any object that is traveling on a curved path will have CF that points to the center of the curved path. The curve is always relative the the background martix. If you try to use a moving gyroscopes position to measure the direction of CF then the direction of CF will not point to the center of the gyroscope. The average CF will, but not the actual CF at any moment.

You added to your post!
No, there will be no time difference.

[rlortie]

point of reference!

A little off-base but something to think about! Remove the stop watch and replace it with a couple of helium filled balloons. drive the car in a straight line. Now step on the brake pedal hard. Inertia and laws set by Newton says that everything within the car will tend to keep moving forward, This I believe we can all except as fact!

But the helium filled balloons must have a different point of reference as they not effected by inertia. nor seem to care about Newton's laws. When you step on the brakes the balloons will not lurch forward but instead travel to the back of the car.

So is there reference differential in different properties such as other mass within the automobile.

Ralph

[Michael]

Okay try this then Jim. Using the idea of your tension model and working model make two arms fastened together by a pin at the center and put a weight on either end of the assembly, making a gyroscope. Put a hollow frame around the gyroscope that's larger than the gyroscope. Center the gyroscope exactly in the center of the frame. Make sure all distances are equal and exact. Send the whole unit in a linear direction at a uniform velocity. At a moment of your choosing have the pin come undone when one weight is pointed towards the direction of travel and the other is pointed in the opposite direction. If what you believe holds true then one arm will hit the frame before the other one.

[Michael]

It's because the heluim balloons are lighter than the air around them Ralph the the mass of the air which is heavier displaces the helium balloons, takes their place from their greater inertia and the helium ballons end up at the back of the car.

Night to all.

[jim_mich]

Before reading your post I just did a WM2D demo to show what I'm talking about. It is somewhat like as you suggest except without the frame. What is shows is that the curved path on one side has a different radius than the curved path on the other side. This will produce different strengths of CF. I can go back and release the wights and see what happens. Since the weight's motion at any given time is a mixture of the movement of the imaginary frame and the movement of the wheel, the weights should do as you say and hit the sides of the frame at a same time.



Edit:
After doing a bunch more calculating, I realize that I was wrong. Of course the CF's on the left must balance the CF's on the right, else the whole assembly would move sideways. This turns out to be like moving weights up/down in/out on a wheel and in the end everything balances. In my pictured example the weight's absolute velocity speeds up as the weight moves forward (upward) and the absolute radius gets larger. But as the absolute radius expands and the absolute velocity increases, the absolute RPM speed drops. The end result is that CF stays the same on both sides. If it didn't then the frame would move sideways.

[John Collins]

This discussion is fascinating and erudite, but a point made by Fletcher, that you, Michael, are in Bill's camp with regard to using a rooms thermal gradient, reminded me that in this concept those who subscribe to it seem to me to ignore the obvious. Bessler believed that only gravity supplied the energy for his wheel to work. A force derived from changes in a room's ambient temperature would never, in my opinion, supply sufficient, instant, always on tap, energy, to effect the kind of changes apparent in the wheel's actions.

I just don't buy it. The wheel accelerated to full speed in two or three turns, lifted heavy weights, ran for a total of 54 days, day and night in the depths of winter. How were these temperature changes achieved? How was it able to continue without interruption day and night under lock and key for so long? How was it able to react so quickly to changes in the attitude of the wheel?

I can believe that such a device could be constructed and might turn very, very, very slowly. But not at almost 60 turns a minute.

Just as you guys believe that a gravity-alone source of energy is impossible, so I believe that the addition of a thermal gradient to the actions of gravity as a power source is equally impossible - given the facts of the wheel's operation.

Your worthy descriptions of why perpetual motion machines are impossible seem to me to be irrelevant Michael, since this machine of Bessler's was not a perpetual motion machine as defined elsewhere, but rather a gravity-wheel. And if you and many others, I know, cannot accept the implications of this statement, you must answer the question, what was the power source, given that it has to be suitable to produce the same performance as Bessler's wheel was reported to give.

If you cannot accept that gravity was solely responsible for providing the necessary input of energy for the wheel to perform as we know it did, you will have to find another form of energy to assist gravity, because in my opinion thermal changes will never answer.

John Collins

[ovyyus]

Bessler never said, "only gravity supplied the energy for his wheel to work". He described his wheels as being driven by their internal weights acted upon by gravity, which I assume they were. From that vague statement how can anyone presume what the man believed or meant?

Bessler obviously never described how his weights "gained force from their own movement" in order to lift themselves AGAINST gravity. That was obviously his well guarded secret.

It seems absurd to me that the possibility of a thermal solution can be so readily discounted in favour of a totally improbable gravity PM. Where in nature is a single example of gravity or inertia acting as a primary energy source? There isn't one that I know of. Yet thermal principles and actions abound everywhere.

*Bessler said that to attempt the (classic) overbalanced wheel was futile. Did he really mean that?

*Bessler agreed that the mathematicians were correct in claiming gravity PM impossible. Read that again.

*MT describes the futility of the classic gravity PM - "until completely different, additional structures have been provided". Completely different structures?

*Bessler was seriously concerned that the buyer would feel cheated. Would the secret not be what they expected?

*Karl's name could have gone down in history as the man who brought the long-sought and elusive gravity perpetual motion to the world, for less money that he gifted to the pleasure of his mistress. He chose otherwise - was Bessler's solution not what he expected?

I could go on, there's quite a list of questions.

Who is to say that a thermal solution is out of the question, or impossible, just because they can't imagine how it might be so? A single understood concept is often all that stands between ignorance and breakthrough, walking or flying.

Given the facts of the wheel's operation, I have little problem dreaming of some hulking rotating frankenstein organ breathing life into itself as it scavenges the thermal resources around and within it, in order to heave it's internal components upward and around, turning forever as it searches for, but never finds, rest. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

[LustInBlack]

ovyyus,

And not to mention the many references to fire, heat, cold ...

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bill....

*Bessler said that to attempt the (classic) overbalanced wheel was futile. Did he really mean that?

In MT, he refers to these as using "spheres"...the first 8 MT drawings seem to be what he is referring to. Starting at MT9, he talks about "weights". Now, the spheres are also weights IMHO...so, is he talking about the actual principles of these designs or whether one is using spheres or weights....I think he means the principle, and I can see that difference when he goes into MT9. He still maintains that a prime mover is missing in many of these set ups.

*Bessler agreed that the mathematicians were correct in claiming gravity PM impossible. Read that again.

DT, pg 185...J. Collins pub. - "And there's more - not only did he have the solution to the abstract mathematical problem - long banished from the court of the professional mathematicians - he had an actual concrete realisation of the principle in the form of a working model."

...it would seem that there is more to this equation that we are missing....where is the part you are referring to, Bill.

*MT describes the futility of the classic gravity PM - "until completely different, additional structures have been provided". Completely different structures?

Ahhh...from MT48? IMO, this is in reference to the prime mover..."The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage."...from MT48, J. Collins pub.

Now, what an indicator that there may be a 3rd component of some sort. He hints to the same in some of his other drawings.

*Bessler was seriously concerned that the buyer would feel cheated. Would the secret not be what they expected?

Could be...it seemed that the simplicity of the thing was a sore point in that the buyer would have a hard time keeping even a "carpenters boy" from building one himself and thus render the investment a loss.

*Karl's name could have gone down in history as the man who brought the long-sought and elusive gravity perpetual motion to the world, for less money that he gifted to the pleasure of his mistress. He chose otherwise - was Bessler's solution not what he expected?

If he saw it, he probably agreed with the sentiment that it might be a thorn issue. That is a huge sum of money to pay for something with minimal to no return....if it was truly that simple. He would probably not want to get himself involved on that level due to his position and reputation.

A thermal solution is not out of the question...just hard for me to grasp given the performance of his wheels.


Steve

[jim_mich]

Using "thermal gradients" just seems impossible to me. This would require inventing some type of unknown heat engine that uses rather small differences in air temperature. We can work backwards from our calculated minimum wheel output of 28 watts in order to find the minimum volume and temperature differential needed to produce 28 Watts. Then there is the problem of the engine inhaling only warm air in one part of the engine and inhaling only cooler air in another part so that the temperature differential can somehow be utilized. We would also need to estimate this engines efficiency. Early internal combustion engines were about 20% efficient. Today I think most modern IC engines are now around 36% efficient. Sterling engines do a little better. So we could guess an efficiency number in the 20% to 50% range. Next we need to guess a temperature differential. In a typical castle room we might find only a few degrees difference between floor and ceiling or we might find maybe 10°F to 15°F in a room heated by a fireplace. Of course the room that Bessler's wheel was in was sealed so there was no one in there to stoke the fireplace.

So let's do some figuring... According to my trusty HP scientific calculator 28 Watts of continuous power for one minute equals 1.59233 BTU. Taking it one step further this equals 1239.1044 ft/lbs of force. So every minute the wheel would lift at least 1200 pounds of weight on foot -or- lift one pound of weight 1200 feet -or- lift 100 pounds 12 feet each minute -or- lift 2 pounds 10 feet each second.

The formula for finding how much air volume change is produced by a change in air temperature is (V2/V1) = (T1/T2)^2.46 when using cubic feet and absolute °F (which is the °R scale). 60°F equals about 520°R so a temperature difference of say 5°F higher would be 525°R. So plugging the numbers into the formula we get (V2/1) = (520/525)^2.46 which will make V2 = 1.0238. This is a volume change of 2.38% with zero pressure change, which means that it did no work. It just increased the volume that the air is contained in. Next we need to find what the pressure would be with the same temperature rise. That formula is (P2/P1) = (T2/t1)^3.46 and assuming a starting atmospheric pressure of 15 and plugging in the values we get (P2/15) = (525/520)^3.46 which will make P2 = 15.505 PSI. So we see that raising the temperature of air 5°F will increase the air's pressure by about 0.5 PSI and if allowed to expand by about 2.38% will bring the pressure back to original temperature. So the average pressure difference during this change will be half, which is 0.25 PSI.

Let’s assume that we want to lift 2 pounds 10 feet each second. How much air needs to be used in order to do this? The change in temperature is 5°F. The average pressure produced is 0.25 PSI. The volume change ratio is 2.38%. To raise 1 pound 1 foot would require 1/0.25/0.0238 = 168 cubic feet of air. Now to raise 2 pounds 10 feet would require 20 times as much or 3361 cubic feet of air. And this needs to done each second. The inside volume of a 12 foot wheel 1 foot thick is about 113 cubic feet. We need to exchange the air inside the wheel about 30 times each second.

As is plainly evident it would seem to be near impossible to use room air temperature differentials to produce pressure changes to drive the wheel. And we used 100% efficiency. Most heat engines operate at about 30% to 50% efficiency, although some turbines and Sterling engines are higher.


Disclaimer:
Hopefully I've not made any major mistakes in logic or math. I reserve the right to be wrong. I've not checked this for accuracy in math nor logic. The air formulas are taken from Machinery's Handbook. Temperature conversions were done with an HP-48sx calculator which has built in conversion formulas. All math was done using said calculator which has the ability to hold values so there is no retyping which might lead to wrong entry. The formulas were solved using the calculator’s solver function. The values posted were rounded off.