Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by greendoor »

Is Energy the Ability to Do Work? I realise now that I may have been labouring under a delusion about the commonly understood meaning of the word "Energy"

Wiki Answers says True

What say you?
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

www.scienceblog.com wrote:Is energy the ability to do work?
June 19, 2008 Some school physics books say that energy is the ability to do work. But that's plain wrong. First, does this mean that a body with zero energy can't do any work? That's false, for example, two opposite-signed charges have a negative energy and still can do any amount of work, which will reduce the energy even more. Second, heat energy can do work only under certain circumstances. Third, how is work defined if not as the amount of energy transferred?

How can one define energy, then? Feynman has an excellent parable explaining what energy is. If we digest it into a definition, here is what we get: Energy is a physical quantity constituting the sum of several separate quantities from different areas of physics (called "forms of energy"), such that this sum is always conserved.

This sounds so axiomatic that it just tempts one to start looking for corollaries. Can we prove the existence of such a quantity? No. Indeed, physics has no proof that the Law of the Conservation of Energy won't break down in some new field of physics. Is this quantity unique? If we multiply all energy by a constant factor, it will still satisfy the definition. Apart from that, I suppose it can be proved that energy is unique.

It is interesting that in daily life people talk about "using energy", "wasting energy" etc. People seem to think about energy as something that is spent, not conserved. Why? Because in daily life and in economics, "energy" actually means useful energy, i.e., energy that can do useful work. For example, I can use some of the energy stored at a power plant to heat my room. Of course, electric energy transforms into thermal energy, but I can't use thermal energy to do more useful work, so for practical purposes it doesn't exist. So I've spent that electric energy.

Energy can almost never be reused, and if it is, then only a small part. Regenerative braking reuses part of the energy, but most of it is lost, so people still talk about spending fuel, which is equivalent to energy, at least in a given engine.

This means that useful energy actually does equal the amount of net useful work it allows to do, so in a sense the "ability to do work" definition is correct after all. But it has no place in physics books. Instead, those books should mention the difference between energy and "useful energy" to keep students from getting confused
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by greendoor »

Having decided whether Energy is the Ability to Do Work (or not) ...

The next logical question is ...

Is Momentum the Ability to Do Work.

(They can't both be true - because they are not the same).

Is it not apparant that we have to choose one or the other as being the correct analog of "Ability to Do Work"?

If we deny that Momentum truely represents "Ability to Do Work", are we not denying the Conservation of Momentum?

If we insist that Energy truely represents "Ability to Do Work", do we not have to fudge the issue with numerous exceptions, restrictions and poorly explained losses?

Why has CoE become the cornerstone of science that is the single most unnacceptable idea to question?

The Feynman quote/paraphrase above illustrates the circular logic involved.

Even Microsoft Excel is smart enough to disallow self-referencing formulas ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Bill_Mothershead
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Bill_Mothershead »

I am confused.

Bessler's wheels turned because of a simple configuration of shifting weights.

Here, we are trying to duplicate that configuration. Make a turning wheel.

Weights, wheels, turning: these are simple concepts.

The MT digrams show simple mechanical ideas.

A diagram of Bessler's actual working wheel would probably be as simple.


I do NOT understand how debating the definition of the word "work"
would help anyone find a working configuration of shifting weights.

It seems "off topic". An irrelevant issue. Not on-task.

Explain your motives for starting this topic HERE...
...OR just go find some more appropriate sub-forum to post this stuff.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Fletcher »

Greendoor .. here are some pics for you to look at - they are done in WM - the program has the advantage that I can ask it to start from frame one with initial velocities already set i.e. no force times distance is required, they start with inherent momentum which is the same for both masses [5 kg x 4 m/s (yellow) & 20 kg x 1 m/s (red) - I have attached a spring element to them - you can see in the progression of shots the max distance the spring gets elongated - this represents the energy required to stop them [the same as required to get them up to starting velocity which I've taken a short cut on but have done in other sims on pequiades thread].

Although they have the same momentum it takes twice the distance [spring elongation] to stop the faster yellow mass than the slow red one - does this mean that it has more Ke, yes - is Ke the ability to do work, yes IMO, in this kinetic & mechanical world where body's must physically interact via leverage principles !
Attachments
Red mass at max distance /spring stretch
Red mass at max distance /spring stretch
Yellow mass at max distance / spring stretch
Yellow mass at max distance / spring stretch
Start at datum - equal momentum
Start at datum - equal momentum
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

Fletcher - agreed to a point. Braking distance is the classic example of the energy equation, and I have said all along that there are valid applications where that equation works.

Your last statement has me thinking: "yes IMO, in this kinetic & mechanical world where body's must physically interact via leverage principles !"

My reaction to this is that in the kinetic & mechanical world, there are other ways apart from leverage principles whereby body's can physically interact. For example Impact or Impulse. This is where I feel the answer lies, and somewhere along the lines I feel the concept of Energy has derailed the train.

Think of a kid with a nicely inflated football. If he attaches a fishing line to the ball, and attempts to winch the ball off the ground and over a goal post - it's quite a tedious exercise. If some form of lever was arranged, it is still a tedious exercise. Levers trade Force for Distance. There is no free lunch.

But the kid could simply drop kick the ball over the goal post in seconds, with ease. This is a different story.

I know the CoE diehards will try to explain the different amounts of chemical muscular energy, rah, rah, rah, whatever. In their minds, Energy is Conserved because all calculations are based on the assumption that Energy is Conserved. It's too hard to measure energy properly - much easier just to repeat the mantra and stay with the cool crowd.

I've found enough logic flaws surrounding the concept of energy to make me seriously question some applications of it. I'm not the only person by far. People much smarter than me have questioned this, including Bessler.

We don't have to trade Force for Distance. We can trade Force for Time - and this is the area that I think has surprising gains.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by greendoor »

Bill_Mothershead wrote:I am confused.
True.
Bessler's wheels turned because of a simple configuration of shifting weights.
Highly debateable. I believe it was relatively simple, but a mechanical clock is also relatively simple and yet still require some cunning design & craftsmanship. Yes - a carpenters boy can build a cunning design, if shown how ...

"Shifting weights" is also debateable - I believe "swinging weights" would be a better description
Here, we are trying to duplicate that configuration. Make a turning wheel.
Of course. But since we are all blindly fumbling around in the dark - it might help to establish some very basic, simple ground rules before we build a wheel. Bessler himself said that he saw the principle first, and the wheel came after that. In Apologia, he gives many important clues, long before he states "A wheel appears - but is it a wheel ..."
Weights, wheels, turning: these are simple concepts.

The MT digrams show simple mechanical ideas.

A diagram of Bessler's actual working wheel would probably be as simple.
All the MT diagrams are non-runners. Bessler was compiling an encyclopedia of non-runners, for future reference. Just like Edison, finding all the ways NOT to make a light bulb. This is good science, and good education. And yes, he stated that by combined several mechanisms from different MT diagrams we could find his wheel. I think he was very confident that his secret was well safe - there is no point building any of the MT wheels with any expectation they will self-run. That much should be self evident.
I do NOT understand how debating the definition of the word "work"
would help anyone find a working configuration of shifting weights.

It seems "off topic". An irrelevant issue. Not on-task.
I hope I can help you understand then. Do you understand that most scientists believe a Bessler wheel could never run, precisely because of the theory (now taught as axiomatic truth that only an imbecile would question) called Conservation of Energy?

If Bessler was not a liar, and his wheel functioned as he described (swinging weights powered by gravity) then CoE states empatically that this wheel could not run. Newton & Leibnez could have visited the Bessler wheel to see for themselves, but it was too uncool to do so. They chose to ignore Observation, and wrote the Laws that we now must comply with. Zig Heil!

But there are many people who have spotted logic flaws in the concept of CoE. This is potentially very useful IF we believe Bessler spoke the truth and made a running wheel that defied the modern understanding of CoE.

For example - this site is very interesting indeed ... http://nov55.com/ener.html

Pequaide - a member of this forum I much respect - has pointed out flaws in CoE. An understanding of what Pequaide is presenting goes hand in hand with the view presented at the above website.

There are many others - I would have to search for the links - but you can google for yourself. Not everyone blindly believes that CoE is infallible!
Explain your motives for starting this topic HERE...
...OR just go find some more appropriate sub-forum to post this stuff.
Or why don't I just go and #### myself instead? Why not say what you really mean?

FYI

I am relatively uneducated and not wealthy. I have been interested in free-energy concepts since the 1980's - and it's frustrating to see so much smoke but no fire as yet. I've seen ideas involving magnets, high voltage, high pressures, exotic metals: dangerous, expensive things. The Bessler Wheel has captured my attention, because it seems like a historical fact, and maybe this could be something a poor & uneducated person could build in their shed at home. I would very much love to power an alternator with a Bessler wheel and generate electricity.

I have gather ideas from many places, and I have learnt a lot from this forum. I believe I am very close to building a running gravity motor. It may not be exactly like Bessler's wheel, but I believe it follows the same principle. Bessler has been the inspiration, and Apologia has guided my though processes.

This is a tough crowd, with strong skeptics and possibly some people with an agenda to pervert the truth. Or maybe its just simple human ignorance at work.

I believe we are like the story of the 8 blind men gather around an elephant. Each man is trying to describe the elephant, but each man sees it from a different perspective. We can agree on some things, but strongly disagree on others ... and yet it's the same elephant, and even if we are trying to be truthful, it's frustrating.

My motive for posting this particular poll here?

I honestly believe that this is close to understanding the Bessler secret.
I honestly believe that CoE - as a theory - has been perverted, because it very much suits the agenda of the capitalists who run this planet.

Energy (as we understand it today) must be bought and consumed. The mighty British Empire was built on the back of coalminers. But the discovery of petroleum oil changed the balance of power and changed history. Energy is war - and the first casualty of any war is the truth. And then the winners re-write the history books. In this case, I believe their is evidence that the winners have re-written the physics text books to hide an embarassingly simple truth that Bessler discovered.

Maybe i'm wrong, but it's what I honestly believe at this moment in time.

So what's your motive?
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

@ Bill_Mothershead again ... why do you think I am "debating the definition of the word 'work'"?

I said Energy - not Work.

Work = Force displaced over distance. But there is actually room to debate this. Is a vertical distance the same as a horizontal distance? I don't think so. Wiki says "mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.".

So we are back to self-refercing equations again ... work is defined by energy, and energy is defined by work ...

Something smells ...
Bill_Mothershead
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Bill_Mothershead »

Greendoor...

My apologies if I have offended you. Was not my intention.

I am actually in agreement with everything you just posted.

However, I will attempt to make my point again, in a different way.



Sometimes, when a project is overwhelmingly difficult,
progress can be made by simplifying and redefining the goal.




A long time ago there was a wheel that turned...perpetually.

The phenomena was caused by internal weights that somehow
got strategically repositioned as the wheel turned.

The goal is to build a new turning wheel by finding a working
configuration of repositioning weights.




Deliberately simple.
"Turning perpetually" is a visual experience that needs no clarification.
The phrasing deliberately avoids any kind of scientific terminology,
(specifically, no NEED to explore concepts like work OR energy.)

Obviously the task at hand is difficult.
Many paths leading mostly leading to failure and frustration.
Perhaps this approach of [over] simplification is misguided and doomed.
It does seem to focus attention on what the goal is and what is important.

Greendoor, I wish you luck on your path.
User avatar
Michael
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3065
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Victoria

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Michael »

I've found enough logic flaws surrounding the concept of energy to make me seriously question some applications of it. I'm not the only person by far. People much smarter than me have questioned this, including Bessler.
Greendoor I am curious to know what flaws you've found. Absolutely nothing wrong with questioning anything as long as one has reasonable ground.
Please state where Bessler questioned the energy concept. I've never seen it.
I'll be posting a pic up of an easy to make machine that tests momentum versus energy for you in a day or two.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

Michael - since you seem to have ignored what Pequaide & myself have been stating and restating, repeatedly, again & again, over & over for some time ... check this guy Gary Novak out:

http://nov55.com/ener.html

I've read a lot of Bessler stuff, at this forum and others. I have a strong recollection of some of Bessler's writing on the subject of his contempories understanding of momentum & energy. Something along the line of some people believing in velocity squared and others not convinced. AFAIK he was unconvinced about whether this "thing" that moving mass has related to velocity squared. I don't have time to find the reference - probably somebody here will know what i'm refering to. This was well before Energy was defined as we define it know.

Bill-Mothershead is probably right. People said that Bessler wasn't a strong mathematician. (The mathematicians didn't build a working wheel though - so who was more right?)

Bill - Bessler probably had an advantage in that this thing called Energy wasn't defined. The reason I call this into question is because I think it has effectively derailed centuries of engineers from re-discovering the Bessler secret. Modern scientists just "know" it's impossible - and with that mindset, of course it is impossible.

All things are possible to those who believe. The corollary of that is this:
All things are impossible to those who believe.

If we can clear our heads of this notion that CoE makes a gravity wheel impossible, we have a much greater inclination and possibility of rediscovering the mechanism.

As simple as we all think it probably is, I believe Bessler didn't get lucky by accident. He had an operating principle in mind, and clearly went about constructing a device that used this operating principle.

I believe the principle involves accumulating momentum by allow a small driver mass to fall to earth very slowly. Because Momentum = Force * Time, the Momentum that is possible to store up is significantly more than the Momentum obtained by he same mass in a fast, unrestricted freefall.

How do we make the weight fall slowly? Clearly wasting the Force with friction is not the answer. The answer is to Accumulate the Momentum in something like a Flywheel, or Pendulum, or Atwoods, or balanced lever, etc. Something that is balanced and therefore the CoG never falls. Resetting is never a problem - this part of the system is simply for Storing or Accumulating Momentum.

If we can free out minds of the problems of "energy" thinking and maths, we can approach this like young Bessler did in the early 1700's. He probably also knew about the famous running wheel of the Marquis of Worcester who demonstrated a gravity wheel in London Tower. He knew it was possible, and made it work.

We know how much momentum a falling weight generates. If you pay attention to what I have written above, you can easily prove (and demonstrate) that is it possible to accumulate many times over that momentum by slowing down the freefall of an object by using it to accelerate a balanced mass system.

It's so simple, the "wise" people can't see it. But it takes a special kind of wilful ignorance to ignore the massive gains in momentum that are so easy to calculate and prove by experiment.

All you have to do is use some of that momentum to raise the small driver mass back up again - and use the rest for surplus power. I hate to use the "E" word because it is so contraversial and misunderstood.

So far, the majority of poll votes here agree that Energy is the Ability to Do work. But what about heat energy? Heat energy has the weakest ability to do work. Energy is a poorly used concept - so poorly used that most people don't have a clue. This serves the powerful elite who control Energy very well.

'Energy' requires a "Usefulness" factor to make it obvious whether it can "do work" or not. Momentum is Relative, because Velocity is Relative. But Energy, being proportional to Velocity Squared must be "Relative Squared" ... confusing? it requires a lot of fudging to make things work. And in some cases, it's embarassing how it simply does not work at all.

Study Newton Cradle. Momentum is Conserved. It's the law. This means that if the Momentum of a heavy, slow-moving mass is applied to a light mass, the light mass has to take off with a massive increase in velocity. Just like a football player kicking a ball to a great height. If you admit that Momentum is conserved, you then are in the embarrasing position of having to say that Energy has been multiplied. Because if Velocity has increased proportionally, Velocity Squared has increased exponentially. But CoE says that is not possible.

CoE is much happier when the roles are reversed, because then the discrepancy can be written of as heat loss or someother fudge factor.

Pequaide has stated this many times with experimental evidence. There are many other ways to use momentum. If feel Pequaide is too concerned about using Energy maths to prove an academic point, rather than just trying to build something that works.

Just build a wheel - but understand where the source of power comes from.

There are US patents for gravity motors available. They don't really expose the true secret, but I believe what i've explained here does mean some of these devices appear extremely likey to generate over unity power. How else would they have the patent? And what better way to remove any pesky free energy builder who dares to threaten the Energy empire ... the patents are enough to kill you with legal redtape before you can get to market ...
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Grimer »

greendoor wrote:...
All things are possible to those who believe. The corollary of that is this:
All things are impossible to those who believe.

If we can clear our heads of this notion that CoE makes a gravity wheel impossible, we have a much greater inclination and possibility of rediscovering the mechanism.

As simple as we all think it probably is, I believe Bessler didn't get lucky by accident. He had an operating principle in mind, and clearly went about constructing a device that used this operating principle.

I believe the principle involves accumulating momentum by allow a small driver mass to fall to earth very slowly. Because Momentum = Force * Time, the Momentum that is possible to store up is significantly more than the Momentum obtained by he same mass in a fast, unrestricted freefall.

How do we make the weight fall slowly? Clearly wasting the Force with friction is not the answer. The answer is to Accumulate the Momentum in something like a Flywheel, or Pendulum, or Atwoods, or balanced lever, etc. Something that is balanced and therefore the CoG never falls. Resetting is never a problem - this part of the system is simply for Storing or Accumulating Momentum.
...
I think that's correct.

I am storing up the momentum in the PGM by capturing the impact strain which is double the slow loading strain. In my case the balance you speak of is between tensile and compressive strain energy within the beam (spoke).

You quite rightly point out that we don't want to waste the momentum by friction. This would be equivalent to dropping down with a series of micro impacts rather than one single impact. Micro-impacts would be the equivalent of isothermal change and lead to energy loss to the environment.

I like the idea of energy being stored in a flywheel. Indeed, that was the essence of the various diagrams I drew up of flywheels falling down tight spiral tracks and rising along extended spiral tracks. The reason I gave up on that particular approach is I could never integrate the track reaction satisfactorily.

I find the impressive aspect of the pendulum (popular with Bessler) is that it moves mass from one side of the axle to the other at no cost. It transfers gravitational field energy into inertial field energy which then returns it to the gravitational field at a horizontal displacement.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by ovyyus »

greendoor wrote:All things are possible to those who believe. The corollary of that is this:
All things are impossible to those who believe.
Shouldn't the corollary be, "All things are impossible to those who don't believe"?

Either way, it seems obvious that believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true.
User avatar
Michael
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3065
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Victoria

re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Michael »

Study Newton Cradle. Momentum is Conserved.
So is energy.

As far as I know Bessler never wrote what you've said you've recollected he wrote. I think your thinking of Gravesande?

I think energy has to be experienced as something beyond just an equation to get the real gist of what it is all about.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Re: re: Is Energy the Ability to Do Work?

Post by Grimer »

ovyyus wrote:
greendoor wrote:All things are possible to those who believe. The corollary of that is this:
All things are impossible to those who believe.
Shouldn't the corollary be, "All things are impossible to those who don't believe"?

Either way, it seems obvious that believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true.
I took greendoor to mean that all things are impossible to those who believe (that they are impossible).
But I agree, the way you put it is clearer. Image

I go for "faith can move mountains". The Bessler wheel is a lot smaller than a mountain so it shouldn't need too much faith. Image
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Post Reply