http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/sea ... -results=7 (Sixth post down.)
Perpetual Motion or Gravity Wheel?
It seems to me that recently, in many forums, Bessler's wheel is being referred to as a perpetual motion machine (PMM or PM machine) more often than it used to be. I think that this is a mistake because using such names brings with it a lot of subjective cultural and emotive colouration in addition to the explicit meaning of term. The term 'perpetual motion' is often used in a perjoritive way in referring to the subject and those who support Bessler's claims are leaving themselves open to even more ridicule than we already suffer if they continue to use the term when, in my opinion, it is inaccurate, and should be replaced by some other term which describes it more succinctly. Perpetual Motion machines are defined as ones which don't have access to any external source of energy. They are isolated systems relying on their own intrinsic energy and are wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. Such machines violate the law of conservation of energy.
Bessler's wheel relied on gravity for its energy. Now you can argue that gravity cannot be the sole source of energy for the wheel, but without it, it would not turn. Gravity pervades our world; it permeates all matter in and on the earth and the space around us, so it is in effect both internal and external to any machine which relies on it to work. As such it is not a perpetual motion machine, and not an isolated system,and it does not therefore, break the law of conservation of energy. It is, rather, a gravity wheel, or a gravity engine in the way that a petrol engine is called that because it runs on petrol; or a gravity mill in the same way that a windmill is referred to, thus, because it is driven by the wind.
Old examples of such machines are a windmill which drives a fan which pumps air at the windmill causing it to turn. A modern example would include a battery which drives an electricity generator which charges the battery. Both impossible because they derive no extra energy from outside their own little worlds and are thus isolated systems.
Bessler's wheel did, according to the inventor, use gravity to turn it, so it was a gravity wheel, regardless of whether you think it needed an additional source of energy to complete the cycle. So I must ask those who discuss such matters to please use a term other than PM when describing Bessler's wheel or we shall never get the serious attention of the scientific community we seek.
JC
Posted by John Collins at Thursday, April 23, 2009
********************************************************************************************************************************************
From at least since the time of the first publication of John Collins' book
“Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?�
it's distinguished author and our friend has struggled desperately to re-cast Bessler's Perpetual Motion as a "gravity wheel".
His titling of the book work was correct. The perverse effort within it, and again as above, was and is NOT!
WHY, I ask, is this seeming fury to make-nice with known oppressors and bigots and, apparently, to seek their worthless latter day approbation?
WHAT, I ask, is the origin of this peculiar seeming compulsion to so-do?
While I have my suspicions regarding the above two, I'll not take-up the subject here, on this ground, at this time.
Admittedly, he does make an interesting case for such a re-casting, but as far as "science" goes, it falls dead!
I am acquainted with a physics PhD. He is a professor at a highly accredited university in California, and he does assure me that IF EVER such a thing as the Bessler Wheel is realized physically, and known absolutely to be without impulsion other than BY GRAVITY, then it "will turn all of science on it's head."
John Collins, without equivocation, above indicates that it is somehow a matter of ". . . the serious attention of the scientific community we seek."
"We" seek?
For one I SEEK NO SUCH THING, nor should any, I assert with greatest force, who have still a lick of self respect remaining within them!
NO!
"Science" has been THE ENEMY of Perpetual Motion, and they have made no bones about it. I regard the set as KILLERS, of a sort!
If NOT of a slave mentality as in "subject", one DOES NOT treat with the enemy, desiring to kiss it's ass! You conquer them!
Perhaps it is that I am American, and as such "WE . . ." do not abide tyrants, but rather seek them out for posterior kicking, and certainly not establishing relations of amour with them!
I STAND WITH BESSLER!
To not do-so constitutes A TREASON unto him!
(In this one thing I am with science.)
John Collins has one tough roe to hoe in letting the sadistic, lab-coated rogues down, nice an' easy-like!
As to such a well-meant but serious misguidance of kindliness, count-me-out!
James
"Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John Collins' News - 23.IV.09.
Moderator: scott
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
"Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John Col
Last edited by primemignonite on Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
John has said for years that gravity powered wheels should not be called PM. 'True' PM is not supposed to have any form of energy input. By definition Bessler's wheel could not be 'true' PM because it could do work. Therefore, there was an energy source.
Perpetual Motion is as simple as throwing a rock in the void of space. Without gravitational influence or collisions etc it will drift forever. Perpetual motion is in fact the natural state of a moving object.
Then we bring it to earth, throw friction in, a dash of this obstacle and that and then we hope to get it perpetual again.
To get it perpetual we must subtract all those obstacles that impact on its motion. But then for it to also do work! Now that is more than perpetual motion. It is perpetual work!
Then we bring it to earth, throw friction in, a dash of this obstacle and that and then we hope to get it perpetual again.
To get it perpetual we must subtract all those obstacles that impact on its motion. But then for it to also do work! Now that is more than perpetual motion. It is perpetual work!
A "classical perpetual motion machine" was any device which once set into motion would continue in motion while producing enough extra energy to overcome friction and possibly do a little extra work, all the while without any visible or tangible fuel or energy input.
Newton and other intellectuals added the criteria that it must also be a closed system and that absolutely no energy be input. This of course eliminates gravity and inertia and zero point energy and possible others. If all external forces are eliminated then of course perpetual motion is impossible. Thus the original classical meaning of perpetual motion was corrupted and narrowed to be something that is impossible.
This leaves us without a name for a classical perpetual motion machine that once set into motion will naturally continue in motion while producing usable motion.
Newton and other intellectuals added the criteria that it must also be a closed system and that absolutely no energy be input. This of course eliminates gravity and inertia and zero point energy and possible others. If all external forces are eliminated then of course perpetual motion is impossible. Thus the original classical meaning of perpetual motion was corrupted and narrowed to be something that is impossible.
This leaves us without a name for a classical perpetual motion machine that once set into motion will naturally continue in motion while producing usable motion.
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
I say let's leave it to the experts as to what is up truly, as contra distinguished from amateur opinionatedness.
(Only here, on this forum, is the definition for PM tortured virtually to death.)
I want to know WHY certain parties are dead-set on letting down the enemies of ours really easy. What and where is the gain to be had in treating with those who have ALWAYS, WOULD and DO spit-upon our pursuit?
That there would be a serious upset to the laws of thermodynamics is crystal clear, and that being so, then this as well to all of science that depends upon them.
Will Nature STOP operating because our (their) understandings of the Her under works ARE FLAWED? Absolutely not, for it is our (their) error of perception/judgement, and NOT NATURES. (That we are all grossly imperfect, is the key fact. Do let's get it firmly in mind, for a change?)
Ask the scientists, and we will have our answer to this silliest of disputes.
Now . . . let's also ask them as to whether gravity is to be regarded rightly as energy per se!
(Here candidly, am quite sure of what the classical answer will be.)
I notice that, of all of you who deigned to respond (for which I thank you), you chose to ignore the main thrust of what I wrote and put-forth, going back only to the old tried-and-true tussle, of comfortable familiarity.
WHY THIS?
FACT: whatever we might desire to name it for our own convenience, prejudices or whatever, a major shake-up is coming to science, and they SHALL FEEL PAIN, and justly-so!
James
PS Jim_Mich's comment
". . . . If all external forces are eliminated then of course perpetual motion is impossible. Thus the original classical meaning of perpetual motion was corrupted and narrowed to be something that is impossible.
This leaves us without a name for a classical perpetual motion machine that once set into motion will naturally continue in motion while producing usable motion."
is spot-on and goes directly to the very point of interest. I could not have said it nearly so well. I tip my hat to you, Jim_Mich!
PS PS Just a few moments ago, I made a capitalization correction on two letters in my original post. The notice below it of changes made has this reporting as SIX PERCENT! Six percent??? How about .06%? I did not change the content of the big message in any way. This erroneous electro-reportage implies otherwise. Why!
(Only here, on this forum, is the definition for PM tortured virtually to death.)
I want to know WHY certain parties are dead-set on letting down the enemies of ours really easy. What and where is the gain to be had in treating with those who have ALWAYS, WOULD and DO spit-upon our pursuit?
That there would be a serious upset to the laws of thermodynamics is crystal clear, and that being so, then this as well to all of science that depends upon them.
Will Nature STOP operating because our (their) understandings of the Her under works ARE FLAWED? Absolutely not, for it is our (their) error of perception/judgement, and NOT NATURES. (That we are all grossly imperfect, is the key fact. Do let's get it firmly in mind, for a change?)
Ask the scientists, and we will have our answer to this silliest of disputes.
Now . . . let's also ask them as to whether gravity is to be regarded rightly as energy per se!
(Here candidly, am quite sure of what the classical answer will be.)
I notice that, of all of you who deigned to respond (for which I thank you), you chose to ignore the main thrust of what I wrote and put-forth, going back only to the old tried-and-true tussle, of comfortable familiarity.
WHY THIS?
FACT: whatever we might desire to name it for our own convenience, prejudices or whatever, a major shake-up is coming to science, and they SHALL FEEL PAIN, and justly-so!
James
PS Jim_Mich's comment
". . . . If all external forces are eliminated then of course perpetual motion is impossible. Thus the original classical meaning of perpetual motion was corrupted and narrowed to be something that is impossible.
This leaves us without a name for a classical perpetual motion machine that once set into motion will naturally continue in motion while producing usable motion."
is spot-on and goes directly to the very point of interest. I could not have said it nearly so well. I tip my hat to you, Jim_Mich!
PS PS Just a few moments ago, I made a capitalization correction on two letters in my original post. The notice below it of changes made has this reporting as SIX PERCENT! Six percent??? How about .06%? I did not change the content of the big message in any way. This erroneous electro-reportage implies otherwise. Why!
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
-
Bessler_Supporter
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 1:14 pm
Re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
How about something like Gravity Powered Motor or GPM ?
After all, anything I've heard of that uses mechanics to create power is called a motor.
After all, anything I've heard of that uses mechanics to create power is called a motor.
But what if it turns out to be powered by something other than gravity? What if it is powered by increasing the ectropy of moving weights by using CF and then harnessing the increased usable motion? (Such would be a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.) It could then be called an Ectropy Motor. What if it uses ambient air temperature? Do we call it an Air Motor?
The most logical name might be: Classical Perpetual Motion Machine -or- CPMM. A machine that would gain motion and force in some as yet unknown fashion simple by moving.
The most logical name might be: Classical Perpetual Motion Machine -or- CPMM. A machine that would gain motion and force in some as yet unknown fashion simple by moving.
"Perpetual Motion" as a name should never really exist. It should be eliminated. But for our purposes it quickly makes people aware of what we are trying to achieve. Something amazing.
In reality a "PM device" should be defined roughly as "A motor whose fuel source has not be known and/or utilised until now and which is self re-fuelling indefinitely".
Perhaps the latter part of this definition is all that is needed.
In reality a "PM device" should be defined roughly as "A motor whose fuel source has not be known and/or utilised until now and which is self re-fuelling indefinitely".
Perhaps the latter part of this definition is all that is needed.
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
I like FED.B.S. - Free Energy Device - Bio Sustainable
or FEDUP - Free Energy Device Un Proven
;7)
EDIT : actually, Free Energy [FE] will do - doesn't matter where it came from as long as it doesn't cost anything to extract & use i.e. no one has rights to its source or rights to tax it !
or FEDUP - Free Energy Device Un Proven
;7)
EDIT : actually, Free Energy [FE] will do - doesn't matter where it came from as long as it doesn't cost anything to extract & use i.e. no one has rights to its source or rights to tax it !
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
Fact??? I think you might mistake personal need for fact.James wrote:FACT: whatever we might desire to name it for our own convenience, prejudices or whatever, a major shake-up is coming to science, and they SHALL FEEL PAIN, and justly-so!
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
"Fact??? I think you might mistake personal need for fact." - Ovyyus
Bill, we can always count on you for a well placed 'zinger' or two. Truly, in this area you are a past-master of dark creativity, in the name of intended pain. (That is a more complex way of implying "sadist". The dear Marquis; bless him!)
Thank you for stresssing some of the obvious, and thereby providing me an opening for further commentary, which I like to do.
No mistake is there. Obviously it is some of both.
You are correct. It is a very personal thing to me, to see right done finally. (Anyone else, or is it to be a continuing drone of yellow cowardice that we hear?)
There is no way that they will escape what is coming unscathed, Bill, and probably, according to my PhD contact, badly drubbed.
After years of observing, I get the feeling that you, Bill, might be (or have been) one of their stripe.
In this am I correct, or no ?
What is your background? Have you ever said? You know mine.
James
Bill, we can always count on you for a well placed 'zinger' or two. Truly, in this area you are a past-master of dark creativity, in the name of intended pain. (That is a more complex way of implying "sadist". The dear Marquis; bless him!)
Thank you for stresssing some of the obvious, and thereby providing me an opening for further commentary, which I like to do.
No mistake is there. Obviously it is some of both.
You are correct. It is a very personal thing to me, to see right done finally. (Anyone else, or is it to be a continuing drone of yellow cowardice that we hear?)
There is no way that they will escape what is coming unscathed, Bill, and probably, according to my PhD contact, badly drubbed.
After years of observing, I get the feeling that you, Bill, might be (or have been) one of their stripe.
In this am I correct, or no ?
What is your background? Have you ever said? You know mine.
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: "Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John
Frankly, I am encouraged by results, but only to a degree.
Yes, a discussion is underway (again) over definitions for the obvious,
but I wanted to stimulate more interchange regarding the issue of whether
we fancy that the gleeful tormenters of so many PM searchers really are
our GOOD FRIENDS of the future post-realization, or are likely NOT!
John Collins seems to be dedicated to treating with them as if they were
going to accept him as their equal after humble presentation of the "non-PM"
but still Bessler Wheel, spinning away.
Past treatments by them of other undoubted greats, are not exactly
encouraging for this alluring (?) prospect.
A couple of examples:
Did they ever with Edison? (Later sure, after decades of making his own
everything without the hi-tech of the day.)
Did they ever with the Wright Bros.? (Here it required the U.S. President
to shake the lab-coated stiffs into accepting that powered flight WAS REAL!
Why did Roosevelt do this? Because the stubborn asses were impeding
progress, which became an issue of national security interest.)
Did they ever with Tesla, post the 60 Hz. polyphase system which they
STRIPPED from him by means of ruse and guile? (And HE had degrees but
from Croatia; maybe that was it.)
In fact, did they EVER with any who did not sport bristling degrees hanging
upon walls, as in accepted "peers"?
I have my opinion on the likely prospects for such a delightful advent.
(Here, the mechanism of social control and ordering of "peerages", is done
by GREENIES. If not intended, that is the very effect accomplished. 'Mind
your place, Newbie, and offend-not any of the SIX of FIVE!', or down into
the depths you'll stay, never to rise!)
THE POINT of this effort is to find out if YOU have one on the subject, as well?
If so, please, do share it?
James
Yes, a discussion is underway (again) over definitions for the obvious,
but I wanted to stimulate more interchange regarding the issue of whether
we fancy that the gleeful tormenters of so many PM searchers really are
our GOOD FRIENDS of the future post-realization, or are likely NOT!
John Collins seems to be dedicated to treating with them as if they were
going to accept him as their equal after humble presentation of the "non-PM"
but still Bessler Wheel, spinning away.
Past treatments by them of other undoubted greats, are not exactly
encouraging for this alluring (?) prospect.
A couple of examples:
Did they ever with Edison? (Later sure, after decades of making his own
everything without the hi-tech of the day.)
Did they ever with the Wright Bros.? (Here it required the U.S. President
to shake the lab-coated stiffs into accepting that powered flight WAS REAL!
Why did Roosevelt do this? Because the stubborn asses were impeding
progress, which became an issue of national security interest.)
Did they ever with Tesla, post the 60 Hz. polyphase system which they
STRIPPED from him by means of ruse and guile? (And HE had degrees but
from Croatia; maybe that was it.)
In fact, did they EVER with any who did not sport bristling degrees hanging
upon walls, as in accepted "peers"?
I have my opinion on the likely prospects for such a delightful advent.
(Here, the mechanism of social control and ordering of "peerages", is done
by GREENIES. If not intended, that is the very effect accomplished. 'Mind
your place, Newbie, and offend-not any of the SIX of FIVE!', or down into
the depths you'll stay, never to rise!)
THE POINT of this effort is to find out if YOU have one on the subject, as well?
If so, please, do share it?
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann