"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[Johndoe2]

I like this thought experiment. I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced. Good job!

JC

Hi john this is the world we live in.
https://youtu.be/MEhSk71gUCQ

[Silvertiger]

IF Bessler's wheels were proven to be solely gravity enabled then that would falsify the Newtonian Laws of Physics, or at least one corner of the foundation of that house (CoE).

At the very least it might give us either a new law of thermodynamics, or added to the current set as an exception to the axiom.

For example, Einstein's work gives an exception in his field equations for the inertial resistance of a mass preventing it from going the speed of light - the exception is a rotational system. (Imo, it is because a rotational system is is one derivative higher than one that is linear when held in comparison. Consider a body accelerating linearly. Put it on a wheel and make that same acceleration angular. The result is that the object will experience "jerk" linearly. Or if a wheel is simply rotating at an angular velocity, then linearly the object will be experiencing both centripetal and tangential accelerations.) In short, his equations allow for objects gravitationally bound in a rotating system to revolve about their system CoM at velocities far greater than light.

[Johndoe2]

The “simple� mechhanical arrangement might be simple but when you are looking for something that is outside of “normall� conventional means ie using something in an “unconventional� means then you are truly in invention territory. I like to use the modern bicycle and compound bow as my standard examples of how something as basic and simple can be used in unconventional ways. Both items are simple and could have been invented much earlier but were rather recent inventions especially the conpound bow.

[Johndoe2]

I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced.

How do you "know"?
How can we "know"?

To allow the acceleration of a mass by gravity it Needs time

Don't forget Distance.

An object on a table still experiences gravity.
It can stay there for a very long time.

Peronally i know in my gut.
I have a really good BS detector developed over the years of dealing with drug users and pathological liars and whenever i first started reading on bessler and exploring bessler my BS meter was going off the charts when reading sciences many explinations for why it is impossible.

[ME]

Yeah well, we all know that swimming with the stream is much easier then against it... so what's the deal here?
We need to know why it is considered impossible, before we can even start blaming the whole physics community how wrong they might be.
It's gut-feeling against mathematical and experimental proof. Gut-feelings (usually years of experience) may give you hints and patterns on how to do things, but gut-feeling is not evidence.

Mass may be a contraction of space/time. But in effect gravity is just an acceleration when you just consider it in the confinements of your home.

Trying to get something from gravity alone is a massive thought experiment, that you can't take lightly. (sorry for ze very bad pun)
We should at least know why physics tells no:

Here is a force:

• F = m · a
  F=force:[kg·m/s²], m=mass:[kg], a=acceleration:[m/s²]

Split into several variants:

1. m>0, a>0 :: a flow of matter, a flow of water
2. m=0, a<>0 :: the flow of gravity (of what?)
3. m>0, a<0 :: against mainstream, pumping upwards
4. m<0, a<>0 :: a dark fantasy
5. m<>0, a=0 :: not going anywhere
6. m=0, a=0 :: nothing else matters

The question remains, how to recycle the flow.

The geometry of recycling requires forces [1] and [3] along some path;
But mathematics tells us that at each point of that path: F[1] + F[3] = 0
So because of that pattern there are physics laws (we may blame Helmholtz, among many), that tells nature that the sum along that path must be zero too. And actually less because of weird entropic circumstances we seem to lose things along the way;
And that's one example showing how physics tells no.

Now how can we circumvent this issue?
And where do we begin?
And in which direction?

Perhaps we can alter reality, but some things are preferred to keep behaving as usual. Like the behavior of a ticking pendulum clock for instance;

[Furcurequs]

I like this thought experiment. I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced. Good job!

JC

Thank you, John.

I, of course, don't "know" that there is a flow of mass and/or energy in a gravitational field, but I definitely consider it a possibility worth considering and even investigating.

[Silvertiger]

We need to know why it is considered impossible...

I like this thought experiment. I have tried over many years to explain why I “know� that energy can be extracted from gravity, but somehow most people remain unconvinced. Good job!

Physics tells us that it is because gravity is a conservative force - you cannot get out more than what you put in. All energy in a system is accounted, and entropy yields a lesser return of output than input.

Further up I quoted thx4 here John: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ht=#166401

How can we know how to harness something we think we understand, but actually don't? This will undoubtedly make things...more difficult.

[WaltzCee]

Losing consensus to what?

If the universe is expanding and things are getting further apart it's
obvious they would be closer together looking back in time. Those
that can do the math (I'm not one of them) say if all the matter and
energy in the universe were contained in a single point (singularity)
density and temperature rise to infinite values. That's absurd.

This very final point — this singularity that represents where the laws of physics break down — also is understood to represent the origin of space and time. This was the ultimate idea of the Big Bang.

You can read more at forbes.com.

[WaltzCee]

'Every failure successfully proves 1LoT' doesn't
equate to 'one more way it won't work'.

They are equivalent statements to me.

My guess is we have different understandings of what success and proof are.

The burden of proof is always on the one that makes the claim.

Finally we can agree. Those claiming energy can't be created should put
up or shut up. Prove it.

[ovyyus]

If the universe is expanding and things are getting further apart it's obvious they would be closer together looking back in time. Those that can do the math (I'm not one of them) say if all the matter and energy in the universe were contained in a single point (singularity) density and temperature rise to infinite values. That's absurd.

I agree. But it's not more absurd than other creation stories.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,
I have made a drawing for you so that you can see only one element of my carrier wheel.

My carrier wheel has 8 holes as you know.
you said, a weight on a table will not move, that is correct, but we have a movable table.

the (T)able has two holes, and in this holes the cylinders can swing in one direction.

From your point I think we have a tilt swing. If you look only at one hole then you see that the cylinder will drop on high.

when we use the connected principle from Bessler than we have also a rising of the other cylinder. Look at the right side of the drawing.

The impact is there to arrange the cylinders, to the left and upwards,
upwards with a flash, small lead weights.
Besslers words, one is going to the rim, the other to the axle.

The cylinders are redirected and lifted with high speed against gravity.
Normally they will fall, swing back, but therefore every cylinder is blocked to roll backwards.

We have no loose of GPE, but we have generated torque.
A comfortable torque to turn the wheel.
I don't see if their is any rule of physic is broken, pure mechanic.

With 8 rolling cylinders we have created a constant fall over construction.

[eccentrically1]

'Every failure successfully proves 1LoT' doesn't
equate to 'one more way it won't work'.

They are equivalent statements to me.

My guess is we have different understandings of what success and proof are.

The burden of proof is always on the one that makes the claim.

Finally we can agree. Those claiming energy can't be created should put
up or shut up. Prove it.

Would a working PM device successfully disprove the 1st law?

The burden is on those claiming PM devices are possible, not the other way around. We can't prove PM (energy creation) is impossible, we can only prove it is possible.
The 1st law predicts it's impossible, and the evidence so far has shown that to be a successful prediction.

[ME]

Georg,
Page 5, second post. I linked to a video.
Thanks for your "invisible dragon" .... once again.

The problem is that when your carpenter can't deliver or your machine doesn't deliver, you go: "Meh, at least I tried"... But we are all still stuck with all this.

[WaltzCee]

The 1st law predicts it's impossible

No. It's a positive assertion of a negative, energy can't
be created.

Would a working PM device successfully disprove the 1st law?

We'll have to wait for the geniuses to tell us. We can't even
figure out what PM is.

The burden is on those claiming PM devices are possible

No. Burden of proof is on those making a claim, whatever
that claim is. The ball is in the energy creation denier's
court. 1LoT put it there.

We can't prove PM (energy creation) is impossible

Of course you can't. That's why you want to shift the burden.

[eccentrically1]

The first law states that the change in the internal energy &#916;U of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat Q supplied to the system, minus the amount of work W done by the system on its surroundings.

The ball is back in your court.