"The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines"

[eccentrically1]

Conservation laws are fundamental to our understanding of the physical world, in that they describe which processes can or cannot occur in nature. For example, the conservation law of energy states that the total quantity of energy in an isolated system does not change, though it may change form. In general, the total quantity of the property governed by that law remains unchanged during physical processes. With respect to classical physics, conservation laws include conservation of energy, mass (or matter), linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge. With respect to particle physics, particles cannot be created or destroyed except in pairs, where one is ordinary and the other is an antiparticle. With respect to symmetries and invariance principles, three special conservation laws have been described, associated with inversion or reversal of space, time, and charge.
Conservation laws are considered to be fundamental laws of nature, with broad application in physics, as well as in other fields such as chemistry, biology, geology, and engineering.
Most conservation laws are exact, or absolute, in the sense that they apply to all possible processes. Some conservation laws are partial, in that they hold for some processes but not for others.
One particularly important result concerning conservation laws is Noether's theorem, which states that there is a one-to-one correspondence between each one of them and a differentiable symmetry of nature. For example, the conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems, and the conservation of angular momentum arises from the fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservat ... _of_nature

The first law of thermodynamics defines the internal energy (E) as equal to the difference of the heat transfer (Q) into a system and the work (W) done by the system.

E2 - E1 = Q - W

We have emphasized the words "into" and "by" in the definition. Heat removed from a system would be assigned a negative sign in the equation. Similarly work done on the system is assigned a negative sign.

The internal energy is just a form of energy like the potential energy of an object at some height above the earth, or the kinetic energy of an object in motion. In the same way that potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy while conserving the total energy of the system, the internal energy of a thermodynamic system can be converted to either kinetic or potential energy. Like potential energy, the internal energy can be stored in the system. Notice, however, that heat and work can not be stored or conserved independently since they depend on the process. The first law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist, but only certain states are found to exist in nature.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo1.html

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,

The factor or component that you are missing is mechanical advantage, (MA).
I'm fairly certain now that Bessler's wheel (s) used sliding weights. A spoke is like a long lever, with maybe a MA of 8 to 1. The spoke also acts like a ramp. It's MA might be 4 to 1. Then the lifting device could have a MA of say 2 to 1. This would give an over all Mechanical advantage of 2 X 4 X 8 for as much as 60 to 1. That's how the weights can be lifted back up, rather easily.

Sam Peppiatt

[Fletcher]

I could well believe that Sam. Because assuming JB's wheel are simple gravity enabled lever-weight wheels then something has to give in the classical physics mechanical sense to allow it i.e. a mechanical arrangement to turn a conservative force into surplus KE (and momentum).

And since it must be a mechanical transformation then MA must play its part. But that pathway of manipulating Mechanical Advantage has been trod by the many since Adam was in shorts. So whatever JB did in that regard it was unusual, not ordinarily considered.

Generally we accept that within a closed path system that no actual advantage in relation to GPE <=> KE can be gained from manipulating MA because of the inverse relationship of Speed Ratio (SR). IOW's they trade-off to sum to one (1).

And to demonstrate that I will outline a basic underlying tenet in relation to MA and mechanics. When two masses are connected via a mechanical arrangement utilizing MA neither one will move until one is in a position to lose GPE. Then one will move upwards gaining GPE and KE, the other will lose GPE and gain KE. At all times the sum of the various GPE + KE will never exceed the original values.

IOW's for one object to descend and another rise (regardless of the leverage technique applied) the system GPE (or system CoM) must be reducing.

The day someone truly gets a gain in system GPE (CoM) with gravity only will be a monumental discovery.

All the best solving Bessler's wheel. The experiments you do should prove educational.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,

I think this is part of the explanation: If the OOB weight travels say, 20 feet around 1 half of the circumference, (from 12:00 to 6:00), it might only have to shift a weight, 1 foot along the radius, to cause the wheel to be OOB.

It's not the same as a basic leverage problem------------------

Yea, I'm getting an education all right, Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,

Maybe it has to do with double motion. It's true the weight is being lifted up along a radius, ( for no gain), but at the same time it is also rotating along the circumference. Maybe that's the deference.

In a static situation there would be no gain. I have to think, there must be a flaw in your logic.

The assumption is; the wheel can't work, there for the logic must be right. You need to turn that around. The wheel did work, there for the logic must be flawed, ( somehow).

But, admittedly I don't know what it is. Sam Peppiatt

[Sam Peppiatt]

I have a bad feeling that I'm getting way out in left field here-------------

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Sam,
you are right everything must go around, the wheel produces the swinging when in motion.
And up, and outwards. And on the other side up and inwards to the axle.
You described it already right when you said all feet must show in the one direction.
Two persons on a ferry wheel which are stretching their feet.
What you have not solved up to now, how can the weight be parallel, horizontal to the earth surface.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Georg,

Yes, the Ferris wheel idea. I was mistaken about that. I devised a link to keep the rods parallel with the ground. Two rods pointing to the right, one pointing in and the other pointing out. Even with the weights all the way to the right, it stayed balanced. It was one of the good ideas that didn't work, (one of meany).

Sam

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Sam,
the ferris wheel was good, but the point, position of the hanging weight is not changing, so the system keels.

Therefore the swinging cylinders, they change the lever arm lenght on one side and shorten it on the other side.

Weights act in pairs, as Bessler said.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

Maybe it has to do with double motion. It's true the weight is being lifted up along a radius, ( for no gain), but at the same time it is also rotating along the circumference. Maybe that's the deference.

In a static situation there would be no gain. I have to think, there must be a flaw in your logic.

The assumption is; the wheel can't work, there for the logic must be right. You need to turn that around. The wheel did work, there for the logic must be flawed, ( somehow).

But, admittedly I don't know what it is. Sam Peppiatt

I think you misunderstand me Sam .. my assumption and logic is that JB's wheels did work. And that they were just simple lever-weight wheels enabled entirely by gravity force alone. There was obviously more to it mechanically which is the missing link that creates excess impetus (KE and momentum).

The Newtonian Physics Laws and formulas are logical and to a degree self referencing; and have stood the test of time and application. So far proven totally reliable and predictive at the macro level mechanics we are dealing with.

Therefore if Bessler's wheels were as purported and anecdotally supported then altho the Physics Laws are logical for one data set they are not logical (nor complete) for the entire data set possible which includes Bessler's wheel mechanics.

IOW's using the logical argument of Physics Laws to negate the possibility of a gravity PM wheel, is illogical if a gravity PM wheel can be demonstrated. In the mean time the game continues subject to those rules (they're the only rules we have). But that doesn't stop any of us from understanding those rules and looking for the data set that changes the rules (or at least tweaks them), especially the Conservation Laws.

[Fletcher]

I'll try and give you a metaphor, lame as it is.

You have always baked a sponge cake using the same ingredients and quantities of each. You always mix them in the same order. You've done it so often you don't even need a recipe anymore. You put the mix in the oven and leave it to rise and cook. Each and every time out pops the sponge cake just as you'd expect it to look and taste.

One day, you have something on your mind, and you're not paying attention. You go thru the processes of making the cake. This time a big scone and not the sponge you are expecting is the result. It looks and tastes completely different. What a surprise. The ingredients and quantities are the same coz you measured them out before hand, you beat them to the same consistency. The oven was still set at the same temperature and it was in for the same length of time.

You must have mixed the ingredients in a different order or something. You've made small changes to the order before by accident and you got basically the same sponge. What happened this time ? Coz the Laws of Thermodynamics haven't changed overnight, the ingredients are the same. Must be the chemistry is different when mixed in that one specific way !

So the rules of thermodynamics are the same, the rules of chemistry are the same, the rules of physics are the same, the separate componentry mechanics behaviours are the same, but dang, you changed something and got a scone (a wheel that doesn't keel) and not a sponge (a wheel that keels) which you got 100,000 times before.

It was so predictable (you believed 100%) that you thought you'd never get anything but a sponge (a wheel that keels), ever, and yet there it is. A wheel that doesn't keel. So our previously held belief of a complete data set (perfect information and predictability) must be in fact only a localized large subset of information. IOW's there is a small corner where those rules don't hold true in every instance.

[ovyyus]

The assumption is; the wheel can't work, there for the logic must be right. You need to turn that around. The wheel did work, there for the logic must be flawed, ( somehow).

It's not an assumption that Bessler's wheel worked, the witness reports all describe a working wheel. If Bessler's wheel didn't actually work then it would have been ignored. Exactly how Bessler's wheel worked is the question. That's where the assumptions and flawed logic and bogus claims begin.

[Fletcher]

Ovyyus is correct of course.

Another lame metaphor. You are an ant living your entire life in a tree colony of ants, in a forest of trees. That tree is your entire world because you are so small and it is so huge. You can't even see to the next giant tree because your eyesight is not good and who would want to anyway. All you need is right here. You get to go outside and sit on a branch in the sun every now an then, breaks and after school is out. You are a good student and diligently remember your lessons taught from cumulative knowledge passed down from the critical reasoning of previous ant scientists. You are there one day and a breeze rustles thru. Uh-huh, you say to yourself. You know why the breeze blows because it was discussed in class. The trees are waving their branches again. Later generations of ants in that colony might eventually know otherwise, and smile at what you believed back then.

So let's crack on and find how Bessler's wheels worked. There are a continuum, albeit limited number, of choices found in nature, but perhaps only a very few that closely aligns with the recorded information at hand.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I thought the theory for a gravity wheel does considered it to be impossible, that it can't work. I was just trying to suggest that the theory may be flawed in some way. And if it is flawed, Fetcher is smart enough to figure out where.

If it could be calculated that a wheel is possible; it would support trying to find a way to do it.

I didn't mean anything offensive by it. I guess I have to be more careful about what I say.

Sam

[ovyyus]

...