Fletcher, I'm not sure if Bessler was surprised, or maybe just a little concerned?
Kinetic energy can be either heat or motion. Heat will NOT flow from a cold object (with less KE) to a hot object (with more KE) but kinetic motion can in certain circumstances involving leverage flow from a slower moving object (with less KE) to a faster moving object (with more KE) thus kinetic eneregy in the form of motion is not restrained by the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, I say 'surprised', it may have been 'concern' - but - since we today are fairly familiar with ke being a squared velocity relationship [1/2m as oppose to m, before 'sGravesande] & we can not find any extra energy from impact, then how do you suppose Bessler figured it out or thought someone else would, to be concerned ?
I think it more likely that he hadn't given it too much thought actually & was pretty much going along with main stream up until 'SGravesande's treatise - impact was a by-product of his overbalanced wheels, not the motivator - so he underscored it as a matter of interest.
And ... if you think that Bessler was thinking that a squared velocity of impact force was to closely related to Cf & trading momentum between objects, but retaining average speed of said two objects [i.e. increasing usuable energy] then that link would be so tenuous to be of no concern - because who would establish the connection for a start, let alone know enough about thermodynamics to see that conserving momentum [but increasing ke] via Cf was ectropy, the opposite of what he & his peers had always experienced with heat flowing from hot to cold etc - just my opinions !
I'll stick with surprised, as in ... intellectual curiousity ;)
Last edited by Fletcher on Sat May 02, 2009 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lots of topics. First there is no potential energy in the NASA de-spin maneuver. And it is inconceivable to me that heat was involved in the maneuver. So it does not appear that you can use any imaginary friends out there in space. You have to conserve Newtonian momentum or kinetic energy, not both and not something else.
Erick quote: Bogus (Law of Conservation of Energy) because of why? Because it hasn't ever been violated? Oh wait....
Pequaide; I violate it several times a week, I have many different models. I have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy hundreds of times. My maximum motion transfer was from ten units of mass to 1 unit of mass. The ten units of mass stopped and gave all its motion to one unit. The one unit of mass was moving so fast that air resistance became a measurable factor.
Jim’s find: A body of 10 units of mass moving at 2 units of velocity has 20 units of momentum; so does a body with 5 units of mass moving at 4 units of velocity. The first has the greater mass, the second the greater velocity; but both have the same momentum, both are equally difficult to stop.
Wow; This quote is an incredible find. It is incredibly true but think what he is saying. They are equally difficult to stop but they have different kinetic energies. If you apply the same force for the same time both will be stopped. That makes the conserved quantity of motion a function of time and force, Newtonian. Not a function of time and distance.
Fletcher in one of Stewarts posts he quotes Gravesande in one of his papers discussing possible proofs for perpetual motion and in he dicusses how some calculate the energy from mass and speed by the square and some by linear velocity, and he states he doesn't know which one is correct but ( if I am remembering this right ) oddly felt if it was by linear velocity then he would be able to show a mathematical proof for perpetual motion.
pequaide wrote: Jim’s find: A body of 10 units of mass moving at 2 units of velocity has 20 units of momentum; so does a body with 5 units of mass moving at 4 units of velocity. The first has the greater mass, the second the greater velocity; but both have the same momentum, both are equally difficult to stop.
Wow; This quote is an incredible find. It is incredibly true but think what he is saying. They are equally difficult to stop but they have different kinetic energies. If you apply the same force for the same time both will be stopped. That makes the conserved quantity of motion a function of time and force, Newtonian. Not a function of [force and distance] (sic).
I think that is a little out of context pequaide - an equal force applied for an equal amount of time will bring both bodies to rest but the 5 kg one will travel twice the distance of the 10 kg one.
Michael wrote:Fletcher, in one of Stewarts posts he quotes Gravesande in one of his papers discussing possible proofs for perpetual motion and in he dicusses how some calculate the energy from mass and speed by the square and some by linear velocity, and he states he doesn't know which one is correct but ( if I am remembering this right ) oddly felt if it was by linear velocity then he would be able to show a mathematical proof for perpetual motion.
Did he ever do that, if your memory is correct about it ? If he could show that PM was possible based on linear momentum [mv] & he either didn't produce a coherent mathematical proof or didn't experimentally show it to be feasible, then I would conclude that the non-linear model won his affections in the end ;)
He, as with each of us, must devise an experimental model to prove our theories above a reasonable standard of proof - that's not easy sometimes but probbly nothing less will do, because it goes against establishment :)
He, as with each of us, must devise an experimental model to prove our theories above a reasonable standard of proof - that's not easy sometimes but probbly nothing less will do, because it goes against establishment :)
That's exactly the conclusion i've come to. I think i'm sitting on a maths model for an engine that displays overunity - but not if E is proportional to V^2 and not if E is always conserved. Obviously I have to build an experiment that proves Yay or Nay. I've made a crude interim device that has me excited enough to pursue, but it revealed some design flaws - and I don't have a means of measuring work done. I've been through a few mental design revisions, and it's just a question of time & money.
If I don't succeed in a reasonable period of time, i'll reveal the maths & the principle - but until then I want to have a crack at it.
No amount of rhetoric is going to resolve this one, so I would be wise to shut up for a while.
jim_mich wrote:
...
The law of conservation of momentum demands that if there is no outside force involved then when one weight speeds up another weight must slow down. The kinetic energy (the ability to do work) changes when the speeds of the weights change. The measure of the energy available to do work is called ectropy. When the momentum of two moving weights is transferred into one moving weight, then the total KE increases. The ectropy of the system increases. The ability to do work increases.
...
I think you have put your finger on it, Jim. Moreover you have essentially shown where the second law of thermodynamics falls down. It only looks at one side of things. It fails to take into account that the increase in entropy is accompanied by an increase in ectropy.
For example, it is very easy to miss the fact that when a train accelerates by applying a force to the rails, the earth also accelerates. The momentum of the train going clockwise is balanced by the momentum of the earth going anticlockwise.
Satellites gain energy using gravity and the slingshot principle. During this increase in satellite momentum the earth loses momentum. What NASA can do Bessler has already done. Presumably his wheel bearings not only exert a vertical force on the wheel but a horizontal force too.
If you put a spoke into the Bessler wheel then it will send the earth over the handlebars. I know cos when I rode head down into the back of a Standard Vanguard at the age of 16 I was that earth and smashed two of my front teeth out on the boot (fortunately smooth) of the Vanguard.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
The ten kilograms has 20 joules of energy, and the five kilograms has 40 joules of energy and “both are equally difficult to stop�.
I assume that “equally difficult to stop� does not mean that you can apply 40 joules to one and 20 joules to the other.
“Equally difficult to stop� should mean that what ever it is that makes them stop is not energy, in fact it is an equal amount of force times time that makes them stop.
No; my statement is not out of context it is entirely accurate. The author is saying that the same thing “equally difficult� stops two different quantities of energy. And if you did the experiment you would find that he is entirely correct.
It is true that the five kilograms travels twice as far before it stops, but that is not the same is it. The author said it is the same thing “equally difficult� that makes them stop. The same in both is force times time.
Grimer wrote: ... For example, it is very easy to miss the fact that when a train accelerates by applying a force to the rails, the earth also accelerates. The momentum of the train going clockwise is balanced by the momentum of the earth going anticlockwise.
Satellites gain energy using gravity and the slingshot principle. During this increase in satellite momentum the earth loses momentum...
Wow! Grimer - I just gave you a green light vote for this amazing insight. Thank you!
Hey - I just had a thought ... imagine if it were possible to mass communicate with millions of people all around the world at the same time, and orchestrate a precise time when we all chose to accelerate our vehicles (or just our bodies) in the same direction at the same time. In theory - if we are all pushing against the earth and accelerating in the same direction, together we should be able to effect a change in the earth's rotation, and lengthen (or shorten) the day ...
pequaide wrote:
Erick quote: Bogus (Law of Conservation of Energy) because of why? Because it hasn't ever been violated? Oh wait....
Pequaide; I violate it several times a week, I have many different models. I have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy hundreds of times. My maximum motion transfer was from ten units of mass to 1 unit of mass. The ten units of mass stopped and gave all its motion to one unit. The one unit of mass was moving so fast that air resistance became a measurable factor.
We could lengthen or shorten the day only until you bring the vehicles to a stop, then the reverse happens.
You guys are miss-quoting the original quote.
The author of 'Mechanics of Flight’ on page 4 wrote:A body of 10 units of mass moving at 2 units of velocity has 20 units of momentum; so does a body with 5 units of mass moving at 4 units of velocity. The first has the greater mass, the second the greater velocity; but both have the same momentum, both are equally difficult to stop.
The "both are equally difficult to stop refers to both having 20 units of momentum.
But when you have two objects with 20 units of momentum each and then transfer the 20 units of one object to the second object then the second object has 40 units of momentum. It takes four times the force or four times the time or four times the distance to stop the object with 40 units of momentum verses the object with only 20 units of momentum. Thus the energy of the second object increased by four times simply by transferring the momentum of the first object into the second object. Bessler talks of one pound moving four pounds.
In the past many people have seen this as a possible source of energy gain, but have been unable to successfully harness it. This is because in most cases it takes the same force, distance and time to reverse the process, thus energy is conserved. The solution (it seems to me) is to bring about the change of speeds without inputting additional energy. Use the inertial momentum force that comes naturally when a weight circles a wheel. With proper leveraging the momentum of one weight will transfer to the other weight. It is like playing 'crack the whip'.
To me it looks like Gravesande admits others were calculating on the square before he realized it through experiment, and of course then there was that Dutch guy who it is thought realized it long before Gravesande.
Suppose we have a 9 kilogram sled on dry ice that is moving 2.22 m/sec. We tie a string to the sled and drape the string over a dry ice (bearing) pulley. We then suspend one kilogram from the other end of the string. There would be an impact with the one kilogram mass that would add to the total moving mass so you would lose some energy. The sled would begin lifting the one kilogram mass off of the floor. Now you will have 10 kilograms moving 2.0 m/sec for a kinetic energy of 20 joules.
The earth’s gravity will apply 9.81 newtons of force to the one draped kilogram. The ten kilograms has 20 units of momentum so it will take 20 / 9.81 = 2.039 seconds to stop the sled. Or: This lifting of the one kilogram will leave us with 9.81 newtons decelerating 10 kilogram moving 2.0m/sec with an acceleration of -.981 m/sec² and the one kilogram will be lifted 2.039 meters.
Suppose we have a 4 kilogram sled on dry ice that is moving 5 m/sec. We tie a string to the sled and drape the string over a dry ice (bearing) pulley. We then suspend one kilogram from the other end of the string. There would be an impact with the one kilogram mass that would add to the total moving mass so you would lose some energy. The sled would begin lifting the one kilogram mass off of the floor. The 5 kilograms has 20 units of momentum so it will take 20 / 9.81 = 2.039 seconds to stop the sled. Now you will have 5 kilograms moving 4.0 m/sec for a kinetic energy of 40.0 joules. This lifting of the one kilogram will leave us with 9.81 newtons decelerating 5 kilogram moving 4.0 m/sec with an acceleration of -1.962 m/sec² and the one kilogram will be lifted 4.077 meters.
4.077 meters and 2.039 meters is an energy difference. Different amounts of energy can be produced from the same amount of momentum. If a 19 kg sled moving 1.0526 m/sec is used for the original momentum and you transfer the motion to 4 kg moving 5 m/sec for the final momentum the energy change would be greater still. This is the mass differential I typically use in my experiments, 4 to1 or 5 to 1. The newest cylinder and spheres model is about 7 to 1 and the current wheel is about 10 to 1. The final velocity of the mass on the end of the string in the 10 to 1 wheel is too violent to advertise. You could easily put someone’s eye out. I use a bag of BBs for the end mass to alleviate that possibility.
So all you have to do to make energy in the lab is to transfer the motion of 968 grams to 133 grams, or any other small subset of the total mass. I do this all the time and it is in all probability Bessler’s secret.
