Oxygons Inertial Engine...

[Oxygon]

Hey guys...

Guess what...

The Earth PMM is also a Inertial Space Engine...

Imagine the idea only with four or so spokes and as many bellows as ther should be...

As the "prop" rotates the bellows are filled with mass, the mass serves as an anchor in space and the prop works against this resistive force and the torsion pulls the main body forward* and As the bellow passes the main body at a certain angle passed 90degrees perpendicular to the wanted direction of motion for the main body(ship) it is deflated and its mass redistributed... ad infinitum

... any thoughts...

I dont know if you guys are familiar with the inertial motor field...?

[Oxygon]

I thought this might help...

[ken_behrendt]

Oxy...

Sadly, "inertialess" drives are unworkable and a clear violation of Newton's third law of motion.

The device you posted would be able to produce thrust in on direction (toward the top of the page) IF you do not consider the reaction forces created when the water is pumped out of the rotating bellows. That pumping action, however, will create a thrust in the opposite direction so that there is not net force acting on the system. But, it was a nice try...


ken

[Oxygon]

**** Looks Puzzled ****

Sadly, "inertialess" drives are unworkable and a clear violation of Newton's third law of motion.

... ??? So are perpetual motion machines...(clear violations) is this sarcasm? or are you trying to be funny?

IF you do not consider the reaction forces created when the water is pumped out of the rotating bellows. That pumping action, however, will create a thrust in the opposite direction so that there is not net force acting on the system.

... what forces...? the water within the spokes is always constant...? any extra can be store in a reservoir at the axis...

But, it was a nice try...

... are you crazy...?

Does every post here have to end with a rightous statement of contented self-satisfaction....?

[ME]

I thought this might help...

It does not for me.. I don't know were to start. Then again I'm also one of those who think your Eart-Day-wheel doesn't work. But I think you should keep on focussing on that Earth-Day version, because this inertial-engine is harder to test... unless it works (also) on a horizontal level (?)

Does every post here have to end with a rightous statement of contented self-satisfaction....?

Because of a potential language barrier I try not to involve myself in this kind of questioning, and perhaps it's the task of the moderator of this forum. But I can try giving my view.

(As I also told one other member on this board) You have your refreshing designs with its details complete and running inside your head. Others have to plug-in on that idea, and that doesn't always work. The problem is that you are over-confident that is must work, others may not. One way or another these differences must collide. The more firm your statement or the commentary of others, the heavier the collision. This is not about pointing fingers to anyone, but just plain and simple human nature acting on cause and effect.

[Wheeler]

Oxygon
I do understand what you drew in the last two images, but I can see they do have some merit.

I use books like (Mechanisms and Mechanical Devices Sourcebook) second edition by Nicholas P. Chironis and Neil Sclater
This book says Yes to things that work.
It has mechanical designs that do follow and have worked with Newton's third law of motion.

I take myself into my own world of teaching myself. When I do this, I make a connection with the universal pool of knowledge.

If you get upset, it is usually because you know something others just ignore.
We may think you are trying one thing, and you are actually thinking something different.

Can you draw the image by using the earth and bars for props etc.

[Oxygon]

I am not mad, I just find such statements discouraging to invention, to discovery... we should all know better than to assert absolutes.

I try to leave open ended opinions when reviewing someones idea...

I dont follow your earth and bars... question...

I will elaborate...

If you are sitting in a wheeled vehicle and have a long stick with two bellows one on the users end one on the end in space away from the ship...

if you swing the weighted arm backward it acts as an artificial anchor (I dont know the tech. terms for this) and the ship moves forward... (ideally you would have a long ship to prevent simple torsion or twisting of the main body in relation to the anchor) but the is just a description of operation...

I wanted to draw a gif but I got tired and will instead use an anology...

Imagine a "row boat" whith wheels on land...

Now imagine you pump mass out to the ends of your rows and push your self thru space using the mass on the ends as an body(in space) to push/pull against...

then you empty the mass and reset...

its that simple... seriosly...

[Wheeler]

Ox
I do agree with you, and it is a natural action.
the system works, however you may be surprized
that the mechanical arrangement is not exactly as you
have described.

[Oxygon]

what does that mean...?

I don't follow...?

[ken_behrendt]

Oxy...

It was not my intention to discourage you or anybody else on this Discussion Board. New designs are always welcome and so are yours.

However, I went through a "inertialess drive" phase several years ago and found that 100% of the designs that were presented were unworkable. Yes, they all had a weight swinging about for a portion of a circle's arc and the inventor claimed that this would provide unidirectional motion without the need to expel mass.

However, in every case, when a more careful analysis was done, it was obvious that the inventor neglected other motions in his device that were creating driving forces in the exact opposite direction from the one he was focused on. When such a device was actually build and operated, all it could do was oscillate back and forth without achieving any net translational motion. On very rare occasion, such a device would, when placed on a nearly frictionless platform, manage to creep along very slowly. In these cases any motion was dismissable a being due to the "fanning" action of the operating mechanism. In other words, it was literally swimming, though very inefficiently, through the surrounding atmosphere.


I AM a believer in Newton's Laws of Motion and, as such, must dismiss all attempts at inertialess drive because they definitely violate the 3rd Law.

You wrote:

So are perpetual motion machines...(clear violations) is this sarcasm? or are you trying to be funny?

No, I was not trying to be funny. I do not believe that Johann Bessler's wheels were violating any of the Newton's Laws...I think they were just obeying another Law that never occurred to Newton.

According to the 3rd Law, the sum of the torques in a closed system must always be zero. On the surface, that would seem to make Bessler's one-directional wheels impossible. However, that is only if we define the closed system as consisting only of the wheel. In reality, I think that the closed system in the case of his inventions consisted of the wheel and the Earth itself. In other words, as one of his wheel's spun in one direction, the Earth would spin in the opposite direction so that, indeed, the torques did cancel each other out as demanded by the 3rd Law. Of course, the counter rotation created in a body with the mass of the Earth would be imperceptable.


ken

[Wheeler]

Ox
It means that you may wish to pm me.

[John Collins]

I always feel the urge to respond to this statement Ken!

According to the 3rd Law, the sum of the torques in a closed system must always be zero. On the surface, that would seem to make Bessler's one-directional wheels impossible. However, that is only if we define the closed system as consisting only of the wheel. In reality, I think that the closed system in the case of his inventions consisted of the wheel and the Earth itself

As you must know by now, I firmly believe that a gravity wheel operates in an open system and there is no reason why, under those circumstances, such machines should be regarded as impossible. If it wasn't for the fact that Gravity is called a conservative force we wouldn't disregard the possibility. For me a better term for gravity would be non-stop force.

A closed system precludes the possibility of an external force, gravity must be an external force because you can't exclude it unless you take it into the gravityless conditions of space. If it is operating in an open system then the gravity wheel complies with the laws of physics.

There is no need, Ken, to introduce the following:-

In reality, I think that the closed system in the case of his inventions consisted of the wheel and the Earth itself. In other words, as one of his wheel's spun in one direction, the Earth would spin in the opposite direction so that, indeed, the torques did cancel each other out as demanded by the 3rd Law. Of course, the counter rotation created in a body with the mass of the Earth would be imperceptable.

But I could be wrong!

John Collins

[Wheeler]

John
can you explain a open and closed system?
Also are you saying that gravity can be used as a force in a working wheel?
Thanks

[John Collins]

A closed system, Wheeler, is one which excludes an external force - the prime requirement of a perpetual motion machine according to the definition. An open system is one in which external forces are permitted. A gravity-operated wheel is an open system (IMO) and as such not in violation of the laws of physics.

Yes I believe that gravity can be used as a force in a working wheel. This provides a simple solution to those who maintain that Bessler's wheel defies the laws of physics.

If you subscribe to the belief that Bessler's wheel was genuine then you must find an explanation which doesn't go against what we know to be true. Something has to give and it seems to me that the solution has to lie somewhere in our understanding of gravity. You may argue that gravity is a field, OK it might be, I don't know. What I do know is that Bessler said his wheel depended solely on gravity and that fits in with my own assumptions. Like Occam's razor the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In other words the simplest solution is usually the right one and that is what I have done, I hope.

However you want to define gravity I believe that it is a continuous force which can be tapped just as any other continuous force can be. Continuous may include periods as brief as a few seconds or as long as the force (gravity) in an observable effect

John Collins

[ken_behrendt]

John...

My definition of a "closed system" is one which neither matter or energy can enter or leave. And, of course, it is one in which the 3rd Law of Motion regarding torques, forces, and momenta must remain inviolate.

One is, I guess, free to define a closed system as consisting of whatever parts of the universe one chooses. Since Bessler's wheels were dependent upon gravity for their motion, one can still maintain that, since the gravity came from the Earth, then this would be allowed as long as one considers the wheel and the Earth to comprise a single closed system. In this case, there is still no need to invoke the concept of an "open" system.

However, I am not convinced that gravity, although a "conservative" force, was responsible for the energy that Bessler's wheels outputted. As I've stated many times in the past, I believe that energy came from the conversion of a small percentage of the rest masses of the weights inside the wheel directly into mechanical energy.

Thus, the energy manifested by his wheels was already contained in the parts of the wheels...it did not have to come from "outside" a closed wheel / Earth system. I see gravity as the catalyst for the release of that energy and not as the source of it. How is this possible? Right now, only a new law of motion could describe it. I've referred to this hypothetical law in the past as "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion".

Well, whatever the case may be, the fact remains that he had something that worked and, apparently, the maintenance of a chronic state of imbalance is the method used. I'm sure that, once we crack the secret of his wheels, the physicists are going to have a lot of work to do rationalizing the operation of such devices and fitting them into the accepted framework of contemporary science. Big changes in the way we view the universe and matter are sure to follow...


ken