Modern science has discovered electron clouds and suspects they've been perpetually spinning shortly after the big bang. Speaking of the big bang, that set into motion our expanding reality that hasn't slowed up much either. They've recently discovered the expansion is accelerating. I would assume it isn't going to slow up any time soon. I hope not or we're in big trouble.
I can't find the quote but I read Einstein was of the opinion it was impossible to cause perpetual motion by eliminating entropy or by creating energy. Although perpetual motion naturally occurs we seem to be having a hard time duplicating it.
Just because perpetual motion is impossible to duplicate doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just going to take us a little longer than we originally expected. :)
Sean wrote:While I do love the mystery of Bessler's wheel, my ultimate conclusion is that modern science is correct when it comes to PM. Feel free to prove me otherwise! But I simply can't see a solution in my mind's eye
~Sean
Bessler007 wrote:Although perpetual motion naturally occurs we seem to be having a hard time duplicating it.
Do you mean the motion of celestial bodies as an example of perpetual motion in Nature? While a large moving/spinning mass in a frictionless environment would continue moving/spinning for an indefinite period of time, the principle obviously wouldn't replicate Bessler's wheel. Perhaps you're referring to something else?
If the universe is continuing to accelerate, I would say that is perpetual motion. Acceleration requires energy, where is it coming from? I could understand if after the Big Bang everything acclerated and continued to move apart at a constant pace, but acceleration? Doesn't make much sense from a conservation of energy standpoint.
Perhaps zero point energy is another example of PMM? Maybe a black hole? Maybe electrons spinning around an atom? Perhaps the universe itself, if it were to collapse any time in the future and reset the big bang?
If one could create a wheel that was completely frictionless, and completely elastic that had an overall system loss of energy in the gravitational field (or outside of it, even), energy would be destroyed. Ipso facto, energy could be created.
Hate to go back to the helicopter, but I am going to anyway... it is like the wheel obsession.
Fletcher... Going back to the helicopter in the sealed box. If the helicopter took a payload (1kg) up and dropped it from a height. Would the scale during the descent be minus the 1kg before impact?
Had to think about that a bit [it's early in the morning here - not enough coffee yet].
Before releasing the payload the system would be in equilibrium & the helicopter engine & rotors working hard. Action would equal Reaction.
At the moment the 1 kg was released there would have to be an instantaneous rebalancing of forces to maintain that equilibrium/status quo - but the helicopter would actually start gaining height [because of less weight to support] before you had time to throttle back - prior to that the helicopters rotors were at a certain angle of attack [AoA] - sufficient to shift the mass of air required to hover at that weight - as it ascended the relative air flow would change [effectively the AoA would change & the blades would take a bigger bite of air [the blades have inertia] & force it down creating temporarily more downforce] - as the weight dropped it would create a pressure wave in front of it which would also push down to some degree.
Some total in the closed system imo, no change in forces registered on the scales.
Before you ask me - if we took the same closed system & hung a 1 kg weight from a rope attached to the top of the box & the released it I think the result might be different - in this case the PE of the weight is reducing - the scale itself is pushing back on the bottom of the box so would lift the box slightly increasing its PE - so there would be a temporary lesser reading on the scale while the weight was in transit - but overall the PE of the system is reduced after the drop & we have forgotten about the energy it took to lift & hang the weight which we should consider as this is a closed system example.
That's what I would say would happen unless I can think of a hole in the arguments - I could be wrong. I'm about helicoptered out.
This reminds me of ovyyus, he once did a comparison using a fly in a bottle sitting on a very delicate set of scales.
Would the fly and bottle's weight vary if the fly was sitting on the bottom, flying, hanging upside down on the lid, or sitting on the side of the jar.
It was his conclusion that the only time the weight of the fly became nob-apparent. was if it were dead and falling.
Would the scale during the descent be minus the 1kg before impact?
So if you believe in ovyyus or his conclusion, IMO then yes the 1kg would not exist during free fall.
I do agree with Fletcher that a compression wave would be created between the weight falling and the bottom of the container. The results of this pressure wave would vary with the size of container and weight. The lesser clearance between the two, the higher the compression wave. And then one must also consider the aerodynamic shape of the weight.
Hmm... something doesn't add up, but maybe it is just me.
Alice laughed. "There's no use in trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why,
sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
-Through the Looking Glass
If it is falling at 32 feet per second per second then I would say that upon impact its going to weigh much more than 1kg.
Now! do not forget that it also gets an initial a kick in the butt from the downdraft of the helicopter. Which explains why sea going tugs use a lot of cable to pull a barge. They distance it so the tug is not pushing against the object it is towing.
Which explains why sea going tugs use a lot of cable to pull a barge. They distance it so the tug is not pushing against the object it is towing.
The main reason for the long and heavy cable is for safety and more so for spring effect, simular to chains used on anchors. But that is another story.
Here are just a few initial quick comments, as it might be much later before I have time for more study/comments. Gravity as correctly understood need not be locally conservative. The usual physical/mathematical arguments approximate the smallest masses as pure points but they are not. That assumption is where the usual arguments initially fail of gravity being conservative, but the idea is usually ignored by many physicists (as being too small to be significant). Even the smallest masses are extended and never pure mathematical points. The paths of the sub-mass "weights" are critical but only on the scale of a single interacting graviton, which is very small. Bessler's four "famous" wheels were all gravity powered, ignoring any distractions of moving macroscopic weights, springs, potential energy local reservoirs, transient initial conditions, and steady state distracting conditions that Bessler used to throw people (and especially anyone viewing inside one of his wheels) off the track, away from his real invention. His real invention (which he worked especially hard at directing attention away from, by a variety of means) was his small but special very low friction bearings (often externally viewable in plain sight, physically before us) would allow even a solid wheel (with low enough total wheel friction) to work. As modern evidence that this was the case, I was privileged enough to see/hear/(feel the wind coming off of if I had wanted to but I didn't walk over to it to actually feel the powerful wind generated by it, though I could see its effects) such a solid wheel (using a very low friction bearing made of superconductor repelling all magnetic fields) collecting power (from gravity I believe) and sending off power continuously at the McKinley Junior High School low friction demonstration about 1968. The bearing idea makes perfect sense with respect to Bessler hinging his school upon sale of his invention and his huge numbers of perpetual motion machines, working substances, etc., as they all would work (deriving power from gravity) if enclosed in a low enough friction wheel (and if properly balanced and if given "proper" starting conditions) and if he used his very-special small-mechanical very-low-friction bearings. AEP - 25 Aug 2007
I do agree with Fletcher that a compression wave would be created between the weight falling and the bottom of the container. The results of this pressure wave would vary with the size of container and weight. The lesser clearance between the two, the higher the compression wave. And then one must also consider the aerodynamic shape of the weight.
In a large sealed container this would be small. How if the scale can feel the wieght can we have any impact? The impact is dependent on wieght not mass.
