Was Bessler's wheel a closed/islolated systems???

[raj]

The first law of thermodynamics says that in closed/isolated systems, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The question that begs answers here is:
Was Bessler's wheel a closed/isolated system???

If yes, his wheel was a closed/isolated system, then, his wheel must have broken today's first law of thermodynamics.
Whatever force/s that was/were making the wheel rotate, could not have been external forces, but forces/energy already within the wheel/weights inside themselves.

It looks as though, Bessler's wheel, or any wheel for that matter is an open system, because, no matter how weights swing, rotate, roll inside or outside a wheel, they will all be under the influence of external gravitational force, gravitational pull and gravity as a whole.

Therefore a torque driven wheel is conceivable.

Raj

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi rij! The first law is BS. It's was simply a declaration that PM is impossible, which we know is wrong. This law was got up, because the genesis could not admit for one minuet that they were to stupid to figure out how to do it. It's a cop out deal if you will.

Of coarse it's a closed system, gravity does accelerate the weights, but it's there heaviness that does the work. It won't run on feathers. It's the weights inside the wheel that's driving it; not weights over behind the refrigerator, that's doing it. The weights are being used over and over, it's as closed as you can get. The whole idea of it, is NOT to have an open system. Sam Peppiatt

Live Your Days Inspired Anew, LYDIA

[ME]

I guess the whole universe can be considered a closed-system.
One could see all individual objects as separate closed-systems, and then they interchange momentum making such an open-system.
Often averaging their levels like heat-exchanges, or almost swapping their momentum like rigid body collision (plus producing heat).

For some while now I'm looking at a relative simple (but precision needing) configuration which could be called "dynamically balanced", being balanced only when it's rotating, or being (almost) constantly out-of-balance...
At this point I remain skeptical, but I have absolutely no idea how to classify this and where any extra (and extractable) energy should come from besides the initial potential-energy.
At this point I accept an "it should just work"-explanation, and worry about the math-specifics later.

Perhaps it's not one Or the other, but one And the other: an open- and closed-system at the same time...

[John Collins]

I'm not sure that that Bessler's wheel could ever be called a closed system. A closed system excludes any source of energy or if you prefer, any kind of force. My personal opinion is that gravity enabled Bessler's wheel to work and since the force of gravity is all aound us, pushing or pulling things towards the centre of the earth's mass, and trying to do the same to the mass of the weights, it must have been external to the wheel. So it could not have been a closed system.

JC

[John doe]

My theory is its like lightning in a bottle.
Besslers wheel could best be described as a thermaldynamicly closed system.
IMO it was not an Isolated system or an open system.
Energy was exchanged between the wheel and its outside environment but matter was not exchanged.

For example if his wheel was hypothetically (I don't believe this is true!) powered by a hidden solar panel on top of his roof. This would be the type of system I am talking about and Gravity and work is part of this open system.



Once you understand this and design accordingly newtons laws no longer restrict or conflict with besslers design.

[John doe]

[quote="Sam Peppiatt"]Hi rij! The first law is BS. It's was simply a declaration that PM is impossible, which we know is wrong. This law was got up, because the genesis could not admit for one minuet that they were to stupid to figure out how to do it. It's a cop out deal if you will.

Of coarse it's a closed system, gravity does accelerate the weights, but it's there heaviness that does the work. It won't run on feathers. It's the weights inside the wheel that's driving it; not weights over behind the refrigerator, that's doing it. The weights are being used over and over, it's as closed as you can get. The whole idea of it, is NOT to have an open system. Sam Peppiatt

Live Your Days Inspired Anew, LYDIA[/quote

The law may be stupid but it still holds true. The law is the box you have to step outside of.

IMO bessler was vey well aware of this law and specifically designed his wheels more and more of a bigger and bigger "thumb in the eye" to Newton and his law. I giant FU sign if you will. Sure secrecy was big factor but there was easier wsys to design and house his wheel than how he did it, it was a win win. He got to hide the workings of his wheel AND tell Newton to go screw himself and take his laws with him.

[ME]

Perhaps Bessler was aware by experience, but that specific law was about to be invented.
I personally think that a larger wheel is just more practical to build and less subjected to wear and tear. The win-win: As wheels get smaller, they tend to have a higher velocity while needing more accuracy to build, requiring a reduction of the heaviness of the weights, and thus producing less power.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi John Collins! Pleased to meet you. Maybe you are right, S, Peppiatt

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow up, Maybe my level of understanding is too low to understand it. S. Peppiatt

[ME]

nah, I doubt that.
A closed system should basically recycle its own energy (like water in a space station)
An open system has interaction with the environment hopefully in our benefit (like the water cycle of the earth - depending an all kinds of external factors).

When extracting energy from a closed system, and it still performs its thing, then it should cool down. When not isolated or insulated then one-way or the other it will be heated-up again by the environment (or just never reach 0 Kelvin) - making it an open system if we like it or not. Then we can consider this cycle (machine+environment) being a closed system.... until it gets out of equilibrium with that surrounding.. and it's open again...

At least, that's how I interpret this.

[John doe]

@ME
according to your definitions is a water wheel located on the bank of a river an open or closed system? Because the water wheel does use recycled energy for our benefit?

[John doe]

Perhaps Bessler was aware by experience, but that specific law was about to be invented.
I personally think that a larger wheel is just more practical to build and less subjected to wear and tear. The win-win: As wheels get smaller, they tend to have a higher velocity while needing more accuracy to build, requiring a reduction of the heaviness of the weights, and thus producing less power.

this is possible also.
But then why the specific internal hidden design? Wouldn't it have been much easier (design wise) to build a standing structure to hide/house his Prime moving mechanism??

[John doe]

According to Einstein it doesn't matter wether it is open or closed as long as it is not completely isolated.

In other words it doesn't matter how you get the energy in the system or where the energy comes from ( as long as it's in a usable form to the system).

[ME]

A closed system only has theoretical value, basically all systems are open.

I'm just going to free-think here:

Me jumping up and down could be considered a closed system. As I burn my lunch and fatigue my muscles there's an end to the potential energy I have. When I do this often enough it could be evaluated in "jumps per hour per sandwich", perhaps for a long period that could be "muscle increase per sandwich".

Compare this action to tectonic plate-shifts and launching of satellites my jumping (basically an effect of the sun's energy) has statistically absolutely no influence on the earth... But what if...
What if the effect of my current jumping accumulates over the course of billions of years when the sun forms a nebula and there's a branching a couple of meters to the right and its ionization influences a passing rock...

Perhaps there can't exists a closed system at all?
A non-interacting atom could be considered a closed system. But how do we know it even exists? For all quantum mechanical reasons (even before we consider Heisenberg's uncertainties) it could just be anywhere... until we measure... and interact.

But for simple math-reasons we can just consider a steady stream of water acting on some waterwheel being a closed system. Energy in, energy out, and some conversion rate. Basically contradicting all preceding stuff. But normally we just want to know if it generates around 50 Watt or 200 Watt and not if it fluctuates between 53.71 and 54.23 for whatever reason.

Wouldn't it have been much easier (design wise) to build a standing structure to hide/house his Prime moving mechanism??

For all we know his "windmill" was supposed to be just that.

[spinner361]

Thanks, John Collins, for your explanation of your opinion of a closed sysetem. I have two main systems that feed each other, but without gravity it would indeed be a closed system. Gravity is the fuel source.