The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[raj]

@Fletcher.
1. In your quotation from Bessler, there is no mention of any prime mover.
2. My Auto motion wheel concept is doing exactly as in that quotation.
3. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that cannot ever be stopped, otherwise, it would not be perpetual motion. Bessler's wheel was simply a self rotating wheel which could be started and stopped at will.
4. Last night I had the pleasure of discussing for hours, my AMW concept with a young astrophysics Msc graduate from South Africa. He followed my explanations, paperworks, drawings, simulation videos and my physical builds attempts with the greatest interest.
This young man is waiting to start his PhD soon, and he would do his study on my concept as his research subject.


Raj

[preoccupied]

I think that gravity is caused by heat trapped in a vacuum. I think it's similar to buoyancy where hot and cold air rise and fall respectively. I believe that cones form at the surfaces of spheres that influence internal temperatures of planets and it's volcanic activity and gravitational power. Areas with several small lakes might have different internal Earth temperature than areas with no lakes or large lakes and this might influence volcanic activity and internal earth temperatures. I think maybe areas with less large lakes will get more earth quakes. I am not a believer that internal Earth temperature is nuclear or that the sun is necessarily just a nuclear reaction. I think a low oxygen explosion could be happening that the sun is being fueled by a stream a metallic or something fuel. So anybody who would want to send nuclear waste into the sun to get rid of nuclear material should consider my alternative opinion because it might do damage to the sun which is not necessarily nuclear if I'm right. I also think that cones can be used to exchange heat at different speeds and cause a neutral heat exchange system to have poles of hot and cold by rerouting cold connections to hot connection through tubes, if like air is pumped through the tubes, for refrigeration and heating just by pumping air through tubes.

[Fletcher]

@Fletcher.

1. In your quotation from Bessler, there is no mention of any prime mover.

No Raj, in my last quotation from Bessler, a few post back (in other automata etc), there is no mention of a Prime Mover.

In an earlier quote of his before that post he does mention the Prime Mover (comments by him in MT concerning MT15).

IIRC that is the only time I have read where he mentions a Prime Mover. Others may know of other instances but I don't recall any.

If it weren't for his comments about MT48 (the ball elevator model, which clearly can not work as it is) where he says that 'other structures must bless this marriage' then I might be tempted to ignore MT15's comment of the existence of a Prime Mover as a misspoke - but it is exactly the opposite ! Precisely because MT48 is a geared ball elevator model that he pointedly says could work with other structures added.

[raj]

@ Fletcher.

You are right.

We can pick and choose any of Bessler's clues, MTs, and explanations, to prove OUR points.

Raj

[Fletcher]

"We can pick and choose any of Bessler's clues, MTs, and explanations, to prove OUR points."

Find the source of Extra Impetus he manifested and I'll wager you'll fit ALL the Clues, not just a select chosen few.

[raj]

One has to be either in or out of a system.

One cannot stay out of system, and still be part of the system.
Any extra impetus must be part of the whole system, otherwise the motion of that extra impetus itself won't perpetuate, let alone the system.

No way.

The cause and effect of any extra impetus must be connected permanently in order to perpetuate.

Raj

[ovyyus]

If earth and moon revolved and rotated at the same RPM would we not have a constant high tide and low tide never changing with motion of either?

We would have no tides and therefore no work done at the expense of earth/moon momentum. Gravity does no work in either case.

[agor95]

Interesting point.

The earth spins on an axis with a tilt.

If the earth/moon and earth spin were at the same rate then the tides would move from north to south.

Also earth/moon is a binary system so one tide is caused by moon attraction.
The tide on the other side is cause by earth/moons common center of gravity.

Is there an earth/sun tide that happens once a year?

[rlortie]

Yes there is "Earth sun tide"!

You can learn more by browsing Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%2 ... 8&oe=utf-8

Bill and I have debated this in the past, I stick to my guns, it is the planetary motion that makes for high and low tides. But as Newton stated: it is the gravitational force that dictate where and when the tidal flow runs.

Go here: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sea_level_info.html
Click on "Education"

Ralph

[ME]

As far as I currently remember:
I thought tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon on our water. That's one side of the story.
On the other side there's this rotation around the barycenter: the combined Earth/Moon Center of Rotation. It's position is somewhere around the Earth's crust. Anyway, the opposite side of the Earth is swept around in greater speed around that point so it bulges because of centrifugal force around that barycenter.
Hence tides are cause by both gravitational forces, as well as the moon's orbit; either one on its own would make the water egg-shaped, but combined makes it oval shaped. It occurs twice a day because in the meantime earth rotates around its own gravitational center (at an angle). When it would be an all water-planet we might not even know the length of day, but that's something else.
I don't know about that discussion but it seems, from what I understand, you both (Ralph and Bill) are correct.

The sun may cause springtide. One of the reasons why we barricaded our country.

There are excellent sources available on the web, I'll see what I can find.

[ME]

Apparently (and currently) I can only find theories of "differential gravitational forces". Either I'm wrong or people like this theory better... :-|
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMX--80J_5o
* Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Hist ... al_physics
* PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4

[ovyyus]

ME, what powers earth's tides?

[rlortie]

I reiterate!

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) was the first person to explain tides as the product of the gravitational attraction of astronomical masses. His explanation of the tides (and many other phenomena) was published in the Principia (1687)[22][23] and used his theory of universal gravitation to explain the lunar and solar attractions as the origin of the tide-generating forces.

The key words that stand out in the links found by "ME" and what Newton writes are "Gravitational attraction"... I could go on discussing my views of the earths barycenter, but we are all aware of centripetal and centrifugal forces.

Gravitational forces admitted by Newton contradicts his own principia that gravity is conservative! I consider this a crack in the glass of "conservative" that will eventually be shattered.

Ralph

[ME]

Hmm... (Must admit I actually never thought about it, nor made a calculation attempt)

Let me think how momentum might be involved.
I tried a simulation (with things on springs) to get some slight understanding. Although not perfect it showed me some interesting stuff.
The bulge seems to be ahead of the planet as the attractive force needs time to affect the fluid.
Attached a first attempt where it shows.
(note: Things (highly simplified) go counter clockwise, viewed in a rotating frame of reference. Only a few frames are shown so that axis seems fixed instead of going clockwise).

Even though this attempt is not free-floating, out of scale and the distances are at a locked radius I noticed that my Earth (rotating about 30 times faster than my Moon goes around my Earth) slows down in rotation, while the moon gains speed. Or, my days get longer while my months get shorter.
When my moon rotates faster it's only logical that it should travel away and spirals outwards (conserves angular momentum).
Obviously not entirely accurate but I think this sim gives enough stuff to enable an hypothesis. Perhaps enough to eventually figure out the formula's to get us a rough estimate on the Earth-moon separation speed: but I'm not trying.

The Earth and moon are separated by (angular) Momentum, while they stay together by Gravity (centripetal force).
Water rushes towards some peak (=momentum) while the Earth rotates below (angular momentum). This peak is closer to the moon, and is likewise attracted to the moon (gravity).
Because this peak is in front of the Earth's motion the Earth will slow down because of friction and the Moon will speed up towards it; hence an exchange in Momentum.
There's a lot to say for momentum... I think I tried here. But the deformation increase of water is caused by gravity.

Eventually it's a matter of symantics.
Gravity is not depleted, it remains the same.
But all momentum even though exchanged, some momentum deteriorates and some other momentum is gained, is also all conserved.
The logical choice could be momentum, because as some momentum deteriorates so will "wave power". In this case Moon-orbital-momentum and "wave-power" are highly correlated.

Two options:

1. Tides are powered by Gravity.
   Because of the fluidity/flexibility of water it's easy for the Moon's gravity to distort this stuff.
   Its peak (at least the Moon's influence) gets less high when the Moon floats away over time
2. Tides are powered by Momentum
   Because tides come and go it is the rotational momentum of the Earth itself causing this oscillation.
   When the earth slows down by the exchange in Momentum, the tides get another frequency.

I don't know (or care) who should win the argument.

[daanopperman]

If the high tide on the wrong side of the moon ( the bulge ) is due to the barycenter , then when we have a solar eclipse , there should be no high tide there .