"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[Fletcher]

All what is in the Bessler wheel is covered from Physics. It is only the arrangement of the movable weights.

Bessler has given so many clues, but the difference what he had explained will not be seen. As more you look as more it hides.

When you look at Silvertigers Impetus thread, then you can see that a Weight will not stop. It likes to go in the Devened direction.

No one will see that a rolling cylinder is also a pendulum, but with an Offset to the turning axle of the main Wheel. A cylinder can be stopped at any Position and therefore can create torque.

But anyway, I (My Carpenter) will built it. I take the burden to prove it.

Yes, you and your carpenter Georg will prove or disprove your hypothesis. And that's the time to really get into what's happening, when you can see the wheel react in front of you. Sometimes builds need tweaking for a while, if they aren't performing exactly as expected. That's part of the process of learning and also takes some time. As always good luck and I hope you don't have to wait too long to find some concrete answers.

"All what is in the Bessler wheel is covered from Physics. It is only the arrangement of the movable weights."

Well, I might suggest that what was inside JB's wheels is certainly covered by the Laws of Nature. It may even be covered by the subset Laws of Physics. In fact it probably is since for all intents and purposes it is only and arrangement of moveable weights as you say. That's covered nicely by Newton.

Where the Laws of Physics come up short IMO is explaining for a purely gravity enabled wheel to work is where the energy to do Physics Work (includes frictional losses) comes from ? Currently it can't be explained in advance AFAIK.

And the missing connection between conservative force and Work/Energy in that context comes from a simple comparison.

KE and GPE.

m1/2v^2 = mgh ... for (and at) any vertical height.

The equations can be manipulated to find or compare a number of things. But not where a surplus energy hides in the wheel work of nature, which leads to excess momentum, IMO.

[WaltzCee]

There is a confusion, no doubt. The law of CoE says that for an isolated system, the total energy remains constant, or conserved, over time. It takes accurate measurements to prove, but it is provable. It doesn't say that energy can't be created or destroyed, and neither does 1LoT. But that conclusion is inevitable.

I blame my confusion on my education (IPS, introductory
physical science, 15 years old). This confusion isn't
helped by wiki articles like:

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. 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.[2][3][4][5]

I appreciate getting straightened out and I sure wish someone
would go to wiki and fix them.

[WaltzCee]

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.

You misrepresent the problem. Unproven claims of PM and/or energy creation have been around far longer than the relatively modern scientific response to those claims.

Science explains why energy can't be created and why no one has ever been able to prove such claims, and that the idea of PM only persists in those with an incomplete understanding of the physics. Do we have an incomplete understanding of the physics?

I'm not sure what you see as the problem yet I'll take a stab at
it any way.

Irrelevant. Whoever makes a claim should give a proof. For
instance the proof that the construction of the trisection of
an angle is impossible.

Science explains why energy can't be created

I love this personification of a faceless, nameless entity
that can't be questioned yet the next time you see it tell
them to stop lying to you.

[ovyyus]

I'm not sure what you see as the problem yet I'll take a stab at it any way...

The problem being discussed is burden of proof. The burden of proof remains with the claimant regardless of any response to his claim. Someone claiming a working pm has the burden to prove they are right, the burden isn't on others to prove them wrong.

wiki wrote:
Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. 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.[2][3][4][5]

I appreciate getting straightened out and I sure wish someone
would go to wiki and fix them.

Nothing needs fixed. Even gravity/inertia energy nutters would agree that it's impossible for a machine to do work without an energy source. So what's the problem?

[WaltzCee]

Even gravity/inertia energy nutters would agree that it's impossible for a machine to do work without an energy source. So what's the problem

No problemo amigo. I think those nutters are entitled to their
beliefs. If they'd like to be taken seriously they need to bring
a proof to the table.

I believe a G.P.G.D. is possible. However I'm not trying
to force my belief on anyone. I think true nutters force their
beliefs on others.

[ovyyus]

So the wiki entry doesn't need to be fixed now?

[WaltzCee]

Someone claiming a working pm has the burden to prove they are right, the burden isn't on others to prove them wrong.

I've said that repeatedly.

Whosoever should make a claim should provide proof if
they expect to be taken seriously.

You can quote me.

[WaltzCee]

Yes it needs to be tweaked to align with eccentrically1's
superior understanding of reality. I don't mind your input
however my responses were to them.

[WaltzCee]

There is a confusion, no doubt. The law of CoE says that for an isolated system, the total energy remains constant, or conserved, over time. It takes accurate measurements to prove, but it is provable. It doesn't say that energy can't be created or destroyed, and neither does 1LoT. But that conclusion is inevitable.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

I highlighted the conflict of opinion.

[ovyyus]

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. 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.

The laws might explain the impossibility (and why energy can't be created or destroyed) but they don't cause it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

WaltzCee,

I don't think you can win------------------perhaps you should just ask questions.

Sam peppiatt

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

And the missing connection between conservative force and Work/Energy in that context comes from a simple comparison.

KE and GPE.

m1/2v^2 = mgh ... for (and at) any vertical height.

I am aware of this formula.
But there is an other one which has to be taken into account.

M=G*l
where M = Amount of Torque that must work to knock the Body over
Where G = -Weight power of the Body
and l = Removal of the Mass focus from the Tipping Edge.

Aus dieser Formel lässt sich schließen, dass die Standfestigkeit umso keiner ist, je höher der Massenschwerpunkt des Körpers liegt, je größer seine Gewichtskraft ist und je kleiner seine Standfläche ist.

From this Formula it can be concluded that the Higher the Mass focus of the Body, the greater Its Weight and the smaller Its Standing surface, the more Stubbornness the stability.

My construction is a fall over construction.
The carrier Wheel is rolling from dowel to dowel so the distance for the stand is d*phi/80. in my construction 2Meter*3,14/80 = 7,85 cm.
I had chosen 80 dowels because in the original Bessler drawing I see 80 dowels.

The carrier Wheel has 8 holes with a Diameter of 38 cm.
The rolling cylinders will not reach half of the Diameter 15 cm, but can reach 8 cm and then it is blocked for reswing.
All cylindrical weights are shifted and lifted. So the carrier wheel will fall over and over again.
The given start energy can not be lost because the weights are moving on a circle path. So COG is not dropping, GPE is not dropping,

The asymmetrical torque is created from the first tilt.
My 8 cylinders have 2 kg each.
The torque created in my Wheel is 8*2kg*8cm

[Art]

Thermo dynamics , --- Heat Dynamics .

The theory that postulates energy is heat and that heat is motion and that you can create it or not depending on whether the motion allows it or not.

The theory that states lack of motion is absolute zero .

- Accept that at zero degrees Kelvin things are observed to be still moving .

But thats allright . According to Wickipedia "The fundamental particles of nature have minimum vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion."

And that makes sense (to me anyway because it confirms my belief that 'force of habit' is inherent in the Universe) and if you put yourself on the line with one absolute and the evidence shows that the Universe doesn't obey the Law then it needs to be explained .


- But now it appears that while I was busy doing other things somebody started 5 years ago changing the explaination .

Apparently "We have created the first negative absolute temperature state for moving particles," said researcher Simon Braun at the University of Munich in Germany." (2012/2013)

I'm not yet sure whether I will believe that or not because I'm not quite clear whether it supports or attempts to negate my theory of 'Force of Habit Perpetual Motion' .

I was pretty sure up until just recently that I had fairly well resolved 'up and down' in my PM Force of Habit Theory with 'hot and cold' of Thermodynamics but now after seeing this new Thermodynamic news Im not so sure .

From the article in the link below --Quote

"As one might expect, objects with negative temperatures behave in very odd ways. For instance, energy typically flows from objects with a higher positive temperature to ones with a lower positive temperature — that is, hotter objects heat up cooler objects, and colder objects cool down hotter ones, until they reach a common temperature. However, energy will always flow from objects with negative temperature to ones with positive temperatures. In this sense, objects with negative temperatures are always hotter than ones with positive temperatures."


https://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms ... -zero.html


I'm not exactly sure yet but I suspect that these 'thermodynamicists' are starting to eye our PM territory with their theories -

Quote "Negative temperatures could be used to create heat engines — engines that convert heat energy to mechanical work, such as combustion engines — that are more than 100-percent efficient, something seemingly impossible. Such engines would essentially not only absorb energy from hotter substances, but also colder ones. As such, the work the engine performed could be larger than the energy taken from the hotter substance alone."

Hmmm .

And " As such, negative temperatures might have interesting parallels with dark energy that may help scientists understand this enigma.
Negative temperatures could also shed light on exotic states of matter, generating systems that normally might not be stable without them. "A better understanding of temperature could lead to new things we haven't even thought of yet," Schneider said. "When you study the basics very thoroughly, you never know where it may end."

Yep , - thats the nice thing about theory - you never know where it will end ! : )

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Art,

instead to get an upwind, generated from the sun, we can generate a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downburst

Downburst.

The interesting part is, as more you extract as more you get.
All Engines are working from warm to cold.
But who is stopping us to generate cold, when we extract energy ?
We generate the difference.

[Silvertiger]

Thermo dynamics , --- Heat Dynamics .

The theory that postulates energy is heat and that heat is motion and that you can create it or not depending on whether the motion allows it or not.

The theory that states lack of motion is absolute zero .

- Accept that at zero degrees Kelvin things are observed to be still moving .

But thats allright . According to Wickipedia "The fundamental particles of nature have minimum vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion."

And that makes sense (to me anyway because it confirms my belief that 'force of habit' is inherent in the Universe) and if you put yourself on the line with one absolute and the evidence shows that the Universe doesn't obey the Law then it needs to be explained .


- But now it appears that while I was busy doing other things somebody started 5 years ago changing the explaination .

Apparently "We have created the first negative absolute temperature state for moving particles," said researcher Simon Braun at the University of Munich in Germany." (2012/2013)

I'm not yet sure whether I will believe that or not because I'm not quite clear whether it supports or attempts to negate my theory of 'Force of Habit Perpetual Motion' .

I was pretty sure up until just recently that I had fairly well resolved 'up and down' in my PM Force of Habit Theory with 'hot and cold' of Thermodynamics but now after seeing this new Thermodynamic news Im not so sure .

From the article in the link below --Quote

"As one might expect, objects with negative temperatures behave in very odd ways. For instance, energy typically flows from objects with a higher positive temperature to ones with a lower positive temperature — that is, hotter objects heat up cooler objects, and colder objects cool down hotter ones, until they reach a common temperature. However, energy will always flow from objects with negative temperature to ones with positive temperatures. In this sense, objects with negative temperatures are always hotter than ones with positive temperatures."


https://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms ... -zero.html


I'm not exactly sure yet but I suspect that these 'thermodynamicists' are starting to eye our PM territory with their theories -

Quote "Negative temperatures could be used to create heat engines — engines that convert heat energy to mechanical work, such as combustion engines — that are more than 100-percent efficient, something seemingly impossible. Such engines would essentially not only absorb energy from hotter substances, but also colder ones. As such, the work the engine performed could be larger than the energy taken from the hotter substance alone."

Hmmm .

And " As such, negative temperatures might have interesting parallels with dark energy that may help scientists understand this enigma.
Negative temperatures could also shed light on exotic states of matter, generating systems that normally might not be stable without them. "A better understanding of temperature could lead to new things we haven't even thought of yet," Schneider said. "When you study the basics very thoroughly, you never know where it may end."

Yep , - thats the nice thing about theory - you never know where it will end ! : )

Doesn't all of this just mean that absolute zero is not absolute zero? All they did was make something colder than everything else measured. They need to take the temp down until all motion ceases, otherwise it isn't absolute zero. Absolute zero is like the speed of light. Theoretically, we just can't get there, and if we think we have, then it's not absolute zero. Negative temps are on every scale: Fahrenheit, Celsius, and, apparently, now Kelvin. Right now, imo, they should be attempting to use their data to recalculate the scale for which all motion ceases at zero.