"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[ovyyus]

No. Burden of proof is on those making a claim, whatever
that claim is. The ball is in the energy creation denier's
court. 1LoT put it there.

You misrepresent the problem. Unproven claims of PM and/or energy creation have been around far longer than the relatively modern scientific response to those claims.

Science explains why energy can't be created and why no one has ever been able to prove such claims, and that the idea of PM only persists in those with an incomplete understanding of the physics. Do we have an incomplete understanding of the physics?

[Georg Künstler]

ovyyus wrote:

Do we have an incomplete understanding of the physics?

of course, the view of things are limited by accepted rules from the main stream.

An inventor is always alone on his new way.
It is easy to fall back to the main stream opinion, only fall back.

The earth was a disk, and now ?
A thing heavier than air can not fly, and now ?

Main stream has changed its opinion.

[eccentrically1]

There is a confusion, no doubt. The law of CoE says that for an isolated system, the total energy remains constant, or conserved, over time. It takes accurate measurements to prove, but it is provable. It doesn't say that energy can't be created or destroyed, and neither does 1LoT. But that conclusion is inevitable.

[John Collins]

I don’t know why we would even be discussing a closed system which is obviously limited by the amount of energy in the system. Perpetual motion machines are impossible if you exclude external energy. Even if you could make a theoretical friction free device sealed in an airtight container there will still be energy consumption because work is being done - it will stop.

Yes they are indeed impossible unless, like Bessler, you allow the force of gravity to act on the weights, in which case the system is open to external forces.

JC

[justsomeone]

Question, Hypothetically, if you built a machine that used an electric motor to lift weights to their out of balance positions, and this machine turned a generator to power the motor lifting the weights and it had a small surplus of electricity left over, would you consider this a perpetual motion machine? It requires gravity to pull the weights back down. Hmmm.

[John Collins]

It’still wouldn’t be a PM machine which, by definition, can only be a closed system, and therefore if it’s using gravity it must have an open system.

JC

[eccentrically1]

Conservative forces aren’t considered in the distinction between open and closed systems.
Matter and energy are considered; a closed system is only energy across the system boundary as heat and work, an open system is both matter and energy across the boundary.
Gravity doesn’t need to cross back and forth across a wheel system boundary anyway, it’s already on both sides, so even if it was a type of energy like you believe it is, it still wouldn’t be a consideration in defining a hypothetical gravity wheel as an open system.
Also, there isn’t any choice in “allowing� gravity to act on the weights.
We were discussing closed systems because it’s part of the definition of CoE.

[ovyyus]

of course, the view of things are limited by accepted rules from the main stream.

How do you know the view is limited by some rule without first understanding that rule? Ignorance isn't a super power.

[Furcurequs]

This is a long held belief. If gravity is conservative, there
is no energy to turn the wheel. If the wheel turns was the
energy created and how? We suppose Bessler's wheels turned.

If the conservative force of gravity can cause a wheel to
turn, why not a spring? It's probably just me but it's
incredibly exciting to think about how this rediscovery
is going to turn the world on its head.

The definitions are based on empirical observations, which are subjected to the scientific method.
Every experiment that fails to create energy from a force at least successfully proves the first law of thermodynamics, if nothing else. That’s the way the universe has been for 13.799 +/- .021 billion years.

I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's say we have a snail-like creature with a spherical shell that lives at the bottom of a fast flowing stream of water. Let's also say the water flow is uniform and that the flow rate is constant in the region of interest.

Our snail-like creature, then, if he had a force sensing mechanism would feel a constant force exerted on his shell by the flowing water which would be in the direction of "downstream." He would also feel the same downstream force no matter where on the bottom he was.

Being a snail-like creature which moves with a snail-like pace too, though, which would be quite slow relative to the speed of the flowing water, he quite likely would be unable to distinguish a difference in the magnitude of the downstream force when he was moving upstream or when standing still or when moving downstream. Under these conditions, then, the snail-like creature would determine that the stream was applying a constant conservative force to his shell.

So, when he sits still, he does no work. When he moves upstream, he does work against the downstream force of the stream, and when he moves downstream, the downstream force of the stream does work on him.

So, what's the point of this thought experiment?

It's to show that when a force is seen as conservative, that doesn't necessarily preclude the notion that a flow of mass and energy could still be associated with it - which, of course, is actually the case with a flowing stream of water.

We all know of ways to continuously extract energy from a stream of water. Mainstream scientists, however, don't know of ways to continuously extract energy from a gravitational field.

I'm not a mainstream scientist. I'm an amateur mad scientist with unique ideas and some real world experimental tests that are just not yet complete.

So, if my experiments prove to be successful, I might be able to show that mainstream scientists may also be as slow as snails. ;P

Ok, what's wrong with your analysis of this analogy?

The mass of the stream water was lifted in the gravitational field and given PE by the sun. Gravitational fields have no mass. Relatively speaking, they're an effect of actual mass on spacetime. Without solar power, no flow. It wasn't the sun's gravity that lifted the water, was it?

The water does the same amount of work on the snail as the snail does on the water, not counting the internal work in the snail.

The snail does work even when he's still, I have to disagree. Unless of course he finds an embedded rock to rest against.

Did the sun lift Bessler's weights? If the wheels weren't a fraud, ultimately, it did. We just don't know his method that we can track back to the sun. We're all too stupid! If his wheels "continuously extracted energy from a gravitational field" with a simple mechanical arrangement, wouldn't that be easier to rediscover than a simple mechanical arrangement that extracted energy from solar power? Maybe that's why it hasn't been rediscovered?

My thought experiment was not supposed to be about solar energy or the inefficiency of snail muscles. It's about the perception of a "conservative force."

From the snail-like creature's limited perspective with all its movement being very slow relative to that of the stream, the force due to the stream of water against its shell would appear to be a conservative force. From our own limited perspective, the force of gravity on a mass due to the gravitational field also appears to be a conservative force.

...but from a perspective other than one of the limited snail-like creature's we also know that there is actually a flow of mass and energy in the stream of water and that there are ways to tap into it.

The fact that the force of gravity is defined in a very limited sense to be "conservative," then, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't also energy to be had from the gravitational field. I'm not saying that this is a fact and that there is definitely some sort of flow of energy there, but I'm suggesting that this could indeed be in the realm of possibly and thus an hypothesis worthy of exploration. To explore this possibility might also require a level of thinking that is actually "beyond" that of our current mainstream scientists seeing that they are so dug in with their own dogmatic beliefs and consider those who would explore such things dabblers in "nonsense."

Secrets can hide pretty easily in areas where others would refuse to look.

[Fletcher]

Secrets can hide pretty easily in areas where others would refuse to look.

True said !

There appears to me to be two approaches that people mainly use.

1. solve the theoretical surplus kinetic energy conundrum of using a conservative gravity force (the gravity field), and having formed a hypothesis of the theoretical pathway, deduce an empirical mechanical arrangement to exploit it, manifest as excess momentum.

2. solve empirically a mechanical arrangement for a continuously OOB wheel in a gravity field (excess momentum), and a theory of surplus kinetic energy from gravity force can rightly be inferred, if not explainable or understood.

Since I know that current Physics does not support Option 1. then I need to invent my own macro Physics to supersede current Physics, or find the loophole in the symmetries of current Physics, and then prove that my theories are correct. Perhaps by building a machine to prove it.

Option 2. looks more doable, with less steps. Besides it leaves something for the career scientists to debate and write papers on, if such a machine came into existence. There would still be ostriches with heads down holes whatever happened.

[eccentrically1]

My thought experiment was not supposed to be about solar energy or the inefficiency of snail muscles. It's about the perception of a "conservative force."

From the snail-like creature's limited perspective with all its movement being very slow relative to that of the stream, the force due to the stream of water against its shell would appear to be a conservative force. From our own limited perspective, the force of gravity on a mass due to the gravitational field also appears to be a conservative force.

...but from a perspective other than one of the limited snail-like creature's we also know that there is actually a flow of mass and energy in the stream of water and that there are ways to tap into it.

The fact that the force of gravity is defined in a very limited sense to be "conservative," then, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't also energy to be had from the gravitational field. I'm not saying that this is a fact and that there is definitely some sort of flow of energy there, but I'm suggesting that this could indeed be in the realm of possibly and thus an hypothesis worthy of exploration. To explore this possibility might also require a level of thinking that is actually "beyond" that of our current mainstream scientists seeing that they are so dug in with their own dogmatic beliefs and consider those who would explore such things dabblers in "nonsense."

Secrets can hide pretty easily in areas where others would refuse to look.

Our perception isn’t really that limited is it? Haven’t gravity measurements been done to death? Think about the consequences if gravity wasn’t conservative. I’m not sure the universe could even exist in its current form if it wasn’t. Nothing could remain in a stable orbit around anything else.
If energy were available from a gravitational field, I don’t think it could hide itself from us. Gravitons are predicted to be the media for gravity, but they haven’t been proven to exist yet. Even then, I don’t think they are the answer to this mystery.

[ME]

Talking about perception...
We all have that gut feeling this whole thing should work asymmetrically.
Verifiable proof: It's easy to store stuff on the attic, but much harder to retrieve. And that while the former is against gravity, and the other with.
/s

[Art]

I think this guy is saying what a lot of people here mean ! : )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j12BBcKSgEQ

" The Scientific method is Crap "

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

True said !

There appears to me to be two approaches that people mainly use.

1. solve the theoretical surplus kinetic energy conundrum of using a conservative gravity force (the gravity field), and having formed a hypothesis of the theoretical pathway, deduce an empirical mechanical arrangement to exploit it, manifest as excess momentum.

2. solve empirically a mechanical arrangement for a continuously OOB wheel in a gravity field (excess momentum), and a theory of surplus kinetic energy from gravity force can rightly be inferred, if not explainable or understood.

Since I know that current Physics does not support Option 1. then I need to invent my own macro Physics to supersede current Physics, or find the loophole in the symmetries of current Physics, and then prove that my theories are correct. Perhaps by building a machine to prove it.

Option 2. looks more doable, with less steps. Besides it leaves something for the career scientists to debate and write papers on, if such a machine came into existence. There would still be ostriches with heads down holes whatever happened.

All what is in the Bessler wheel is covered from Physics. It is only the arrangement of the movable weights.
Bessler has given so many clues, but the difference what he had explained will not be seen. As more you look as more it hides.

When you look at Silvertigers Impetus tread, then you can see that a Weight will not stop.
It likes to go in the Devened direction.

No one will see that a rolling cylinder is also a pendulum, but with an Offset to the turning axle of the main Wheel.
A cylinder can be stopped at any Position and therefore can create torque.

But anyway, I (My Carpenter will built) it. I take the burden to prove it.

.

[ME]

I think this guy is saying what a lot of people here mean ! : )
" The Scientific method is Crap "

You may be right. That talk is so bad, it's not even funny.

-- First off -- the scientific method is iterative at its core !! It's not a process to be completed on its own as if it's a game or (school assignment): you are "allowed" to back-step every time.
-- How do I choose a problem? --- Besides boring school-assignments, it should be curiosity of the problem that chooses you.
-- What do I do with my conclusion? -- Besides boring school-assignments, it should answer your own (hopefully unbiased) question
-- How do I come up with a hypothesis? -- It all depends on what makes you question that thing under investigation...
-- Intimidating process? -- If you want a grade, yes... If you want a definitive answer, it is what it takes...
-- Focus on conclusion? -- It should answer that question you initially posed yourself!!!!! Unless it was a school assignment...

He may replace his misrepresentation with some circular process (more or less the scientific method itself), while people only remember that catchy phrase "The scientific method is crap".
AKA, a bad educator.


Have another video:

This how science works.
One researcher comes up with a result.
And that is not the truth. No. No, a scientific emergent truth is not the result of any one experiment.
What has to happen is, somebody else has to verify it.
Preferably a competitor. Preferably someone who doesn't want you to be correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvSXI2iBcA