Fletcher wrote:Furcurequs wrote:
Fletcher wrote:One of the basic tenets is the Work Energy Equivalence Principle. It says that KE is the currency for Work (capacity to do Work ( f x d )). It also says that GPE and KE, as far as masses in a gravity field are concerned, are interchangeable in that as one loses GPE it gains an equal amount of KE. It also says that this linear exchange in energy form is completely independent of path taken, as we all know from pendulum drop tests and masses on wheels turning losing height and gaining velocity.
I guess my argument is that the fundamental building blocks may already be there in the physics laws that are already accepted but that there may be ways to assemble those blocks that mainstream scientists haven't been creative enough to consider.
If someone were to come up with a working device involving gravity, I suspect that DUE to the
currently known and accepted laws of physics all of the energy would be accounted for if we used a rigorous physics/mathematical analysis. I don't AT ALL believe that a working device would
magically create energy from nothing.
If all the energy could be accounted for based on the "currently known and accepted laws of physics" and a
working device would not "magically create energy from nothing" then we seem to be following some sort of circular logic with your argument Dwayne ? At least it seems to me.
The Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP) says that the integral of force times distance/displacement ( f x d ) is measured in Joules (N.m), as is GPE and KE, the capacity to do Work. Therefore they are directly interchangeable and we treat them so. We lose GPE of a mass and thru law of levers (leverage) get it to raise another mass a distance for which the product
never exceeds the GPE Joules lost etc etc.
So, if we have a "Working Wheel" that ONLY uses gravity and/plus any associated dynamic forces in the immediate wheel environment, and can Output useful external Work ( f x d ) over and above normal system frictional losses, then that extra energy Output has to be accounted for because it is greater than the GPE joules lost and torque created etc. Precisely because gravity is considered
conservative and path independent in the laws of physics !
If a wheel "Works" and is self sustaining and can do external Work then something in the laws of physics must give way. As dax and myself discussed some time ago a likely candidate could be
Mechanical Advantage and Velocity Ratio being reciprocals adding to 1. Perhaps there is a way to break that relationship mechanically, with a Working machine that produces excess impetus or impulse in one direction ? It doesn't seem possible to have perpetual imbalance and seems only temporary imbalance conditions that null the torques are possible with gravity.
Either way .. some law of physics must give ground ! And the laws are not therefore coherent !
JMO's.
Fletcher, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Until you, I or someone else can actually present evidence for a "working device," unfortunately we can do little more than speculate and test our ideas while considering the possibilities, I suppose.
...and although I may most always be open to inspiration, I'm not currently in a brainstorming phase or particularly seeking inspiration in regards to this problem. I'm still trying to get device design ideas I've already had, and that are in part over 5 years old now, built and tested. My biggest hurdles in this regard may not be in the difficulty of the build itself but rather in my struggle with my health situation, discomfort and an associated lack of motivation.
Anyway, the main reason I suggested the possible scenario that I did is that my own ideas - if they were to work, of course - may fit into that category. If these particular ideas don't ultimately work, however, I would still believe that the most likely possibility for a solution to the puzzle would be in keeping with the fundamental laws of physics - such as the work energy equivalence principle, conservation of energy(/mass) and the conservation of angular and linear momentums as they are defined and properly applied.
If you remember my wager with jim_mich when I was addressing one of the simple physics problems that was giving him fits, and the wager I made so that I could hopefully see his math and see what he had done wrong (and hopefully also end some of the garbage, but...), due to the amazing coherence of all the physics laws, I was able to work that problem in ultimately four or five different ways and get the same answer with each.
After seeing jim_mich's math and finding his errors, I saw that even the method he attempted gave the same answer (when worked correctly) as the ones I had originally used. His attempted method was not one that I would have thought of myself, but I saw that the reason it worked was due to the coherence of these laws and the superposition principle.
So, I really don't see any of these fundamental laws/principles of physics changing even with a solution that gave us a "working wheel." So, there's the rub. How can we have both?!
Well, I believe I MIGHT have a solution which involves a certain combination of physical interactions that has apparently not been considered by others - which, of course, is basically the possibility I was suggesting.
I am in an awkward position here, though. To convince you that there may be such interactions (or that I might simply be confused), I would pretty much have to show you what I'm working on, but I'm not ready to do that.
I don't want to be playing this "I've got a secret" game, either, though - where people apparently want others to stop what they are doing and follow them but while not giving them any information of substance. So, let's just say that I feel I have reason to believe that the possibility I suggested is a real one.
You are free, of course, to explore anywhere you wish.
Elsewhere in the forum I have argued
that a working device might result in some sort of change in the motion of the earth - something along the lines of what Wubbly suggested - and that a proper accounting of the energy based upon the fundamentals of physics might show this. For a single device operating over human time scales, the change would likely be imperceptibly small, of course, but there.
If I were to put a waterwheel in the small river out behind my cabin, I could extract energy from the relative motion of the, from my perspective, moving river and fixed ground. My waterwheel would be an interface between the two and as long as the water was flowing, I could get my energy and I wouldn't really have to concern myself with what ultimately made that river flow.
I think a "working wheel" would be in some ways similar. I may not have to concern myself with the ultimate source of the energy to get the device working. I just need to use the forces that are available to me.
My argument, then, is basically the same as that of John Collins. The wheel would have to be considered an "open system" and so the energy would comes from without. To account for the energy we would then have to consider a much larger system and decide what's happening with the earth and gravitational field around it.
John Collins may have dismissed any changes in the motion of the earth (?), but I think that could only be determined through a proper analysis of the as of yet still hypothetical device. If such devices were possible and were used worldwide over large time scales, I think we might even have to consider such possible unintended consequences so as to hopefully be able to mitigate any problems.
Dwayne
