The Plausibility of Perpetual Motion

[r.henley]

Since perpetual motion is not considered possible according to known principles of physics, I thought I would mention a small over sight. Wilipedia has this to say about it; A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

With thermodynamics, it usually refers to exciting an atom or molecule. If they are in equilibrium with their environment, they will suffer entropy because only gravity violates entropy. An example of this is our Sun. It is gaining mass despite the amount of energy it releases.
At one time, some scientists did use this to oppose an ever expanding universe theory as a result of entropy when stars like our Sun fail because they collapse in on themselves because their gravity becomes too great.
I think this is fairly basic knowledge. As for myself, I have always considered Conservation of Momentum. An example of this is that because of the gravitational effect between the Earth and the Moon, the Earth has slowed while the Moon has increased it's velocity.
And this link might be worth reading. It goes against why they say perpetual motion is impossible. Gravity is used to accelerate satellites.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... ion102.htm
And with Bessler, I would say he discovered a clever arrangement of levers and mechanisms which can be demonstrated. With Conservation of Momentum, it is the Earth's gravity causing a weighted lever to fall. And when it pumps water, it is up to the crafts person to make use of such work. And both bellows and pumps can do this. It becomes less about physics and more about mechanical engineering.

[Fcdriver]

The stompers, the pump, and the bellows, give a force to push against in a jerking motion, the moves the weights, inside the wheel, but not against the rotation of the wheel directly. This divides the functions, of lift and power stroke, into different functions and timing, separates them, with the wheel in between. It is not a bellows rotating around inside of the wheel.

[Kirk]

A lot of bunkum is promoted as fact. c being the limit to velocity for example. It requires we all have the same frame of reference, which is absurd. This trickles through our entire physics catechism. You have to have a rationale for your device and most folks don't have one.

What is your mechanism to get the potential energy in the wheel? Forget position. that's a dead end. I am willing to guarantee elastic collisions are involved. Hard wood is quite elastic below limits.