"Perpetual Motion or Gravity wheel?" from John Collins' News - 23.IV.09.

[primemignonite]

Request granted, Damien, but this issue IS KEY.

That no one other than myself will address the
point (so-far), is revealing. Of exactly what, I don't
know, but something is not right and I will get to
the bottom of it, by hook or by crook done. Whatever.

As I wrote above, I believe it to be cowardice or
selfishness, or both, but I could be wrong. We'll see.

Let us not be as greedy roots.

James

[Bessler_Supporter]

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.

It could be that the classical thought is to narrow minded. One reason for this is it would need to support Newton's first Law of Motion. A body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force.
What is forgotten here is that when a body is at rest on the Earth's surface, it is being acted upon by another force.
So, to set it in constant motion would require to use the same force (gravity) differently. This would go outside of the box the individuals you mention thought in.
Of course, a working perpetual wheel would be accepted as such. The reason why I think this is, is because it is the design, not the materials it would consist of that would be of interest.

Jim

[Grimer]

I agree with John. I think it should be called a gravity motor. That is something people can understand.

Not only that but there is a good extant example of an almost gravity motor in the Rubber Band Motor. True it requires heat to make up the losses but the driving force is gravity as can be easily demonstrated by laying it on its side whereupon it stops.

If at some future date someone comes up with some other kind of free energy motor which is independent of gravity then people aren't going to worry about a name change. Cf X-rays. They are still called X rays even though we now know what the X stands for.

[ovyyus]

Not only that but there is a good extant example of an almost gravity motor in the Rubber Band Motor. True it requires heat to make up the losses but the driving force is gravity as can be easily demonstrated by laying it on its side whereupon it stops.

The above is incorrect. Lay a rubber band wheel on it's side and replace the force of gravity acting upon it with a force against the rim (eg: a fixed roller) in order to cause a tension gradient across the rubber band spokes. Correctly applied heat will cause rotation regardless of orientation. No heat = no motor. Gravity is optional. Therefore, gravity has nothing to do with fundamental operation of the rubber band motor.

[Grimer]

... Lay a rubber band wheel on it's side and replace the force of gravity acting upon it with a force against the rim (eg: a fixed roller) in order to cause a tension gradient across the rubber band spokes. Correctly applied heat will cause rotation regardless of orientation. No heat = no motor. Gravity is optional.

I think it's fairly obvious that one can substitute one set of springs for another. But if you do you have a different device.

The fact is that the RBM shown in the video will work in the vertical position but not in the horizontal. I presume you don't dispute this (as one member of the Steorn forum did, categorically, until he thought better of it).

[ovyyus]

I think it's fairly obvious that one can substitute one set of springs for another. But if you do you have a different device.

What set of springs? No additional springs are required other than the rubber band spokes.

The energy source that drives the rubber band wheel is the applied heat (and/or cold) and not the force used to pretension the bands. Changing the orientation and nature of the applied tensioning force does not make the RBM a fundamentally different device. Eg: A clock driven by either falling weights or a clock spring is obviously still the same device - a clock. Of course, a clock which uses falling weight to drive it will not operate when placed in a horizontal position, but that is missing the point entirely :D

[Grimer]

@ ovyyus

I see you didn't dispute the sentence which I have now highlighted in red.

Anyway, things have now moved on because there is reason to believe that gravity can be used to
both lengthen the spokes on one side of the wheel and shorten them on the other.

[ovyyus]

Grimer, I already addressed your sentence above, which is now highlighted in red for your convenience.

[Jim Williams]

Perpetual lasts longer than existence. Gravity is within existence. The absense of an outside energy source can be perpetual as in a PMM. A gravity motor cannot be called perpetual.

[erick]

I agree with Jim Williams. The entire Universe will one day come to a halt. Even that isn't perpetual in the truest sense of the word. In comparison to the short length of a human lifespan and indeed the existence of the human race, the eventual longevity of the Universe might seem perpetual and infinite but in reality it is finite and does have an end... at least in theory :-)

[Grimer]

Grimer, I already addressed your sentence above, which is now highlighted in red for your convenience.

Sorry. I hadn't realised that was meant to be your answer. ;-)

[primemignonite]

Thanks for all the beside-the-issue contributions to my topic, but I have been frustrated in achieving much of anything of my main, actual goal, and for that, I do not thank you!

Any further than it has already gotten - which is NOWHERE - is clearly not going to happen, and in this your determinations are ones obviously
well steeled.

So . . . for the moment, I give up, and you win. Congratulations.

(Net-sum gain: ZERO!)

Perhaps, when John Collins returns, his distinguished, illuminating presence will shake-loose something actually apertaining, instead of intruded side issues and subjects, migrated from other threads, no matter how interesting.

(To HIM you will respond!)

I suppose that the message implicit here, is that ONLY the opinions of establishment theoretical physicists are really important after all - these at least as they regard just WHAT perpetual motion actually is according to their definition of it, for purposes of their defenses, of their thermodynamical laws, or "laws", as the actual case may prove to be.

I realize that this is juicily ironic, since they presently do constitute THE ENEMY-ABSOLUTE of ours, but as they say, when needing definitiveness, "ask the experts"!

And also, if you will, please understand that I am not including engineers or industrial designers, nor their like, within term "lab-coats" or "enemy". This class of thinkers and real-world workers must produce tangible results, rather than what those others mostly do.

And finally, in closing down this star-crossed little effort, doubters may find something here

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm

that might help indicate to them, a bit of that which so-animates me against the insolent, prick species.

Do YOU, perpetual motion seeker, LIKE being presumed some sort of "insane", for your strongly held beliefs?

Well, no matter, for I don't as I am not masochistic and do maintain a small modicum of pride, at least.

"We're done here."

James

[Grimer]

...
And finally, in closing down this star-crossed little effort, doubters may find something here

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm

that might help indicate to them, a bit of that which so-animates me against the insolent, prick species.

Do YOU, perpetual motion seeker, LIKE being presumed some sort of "insane", for your strongly held beliefs?

Well, no matter, for I don't as I am not masochistic and do maintain a small modicum of pride, at least.

"We're done here."

James

Interesting link you dug up, James. Every member should read it.

Personally I think the article was very reasonable. For instance, the author accepted that physics can overlook things but pointed out that that the implications of something, such as a gravity mill for example, have ramifications which will undermine a lot of existing physics.

The key importance of the Bessler Wheel is that its existence is as unarguable as the existence of any significant historical figure and as such represents a truth which physics is incapable of digesting and has had to dismiss as a fraud despite massive evidence to the contrary. This suggests that there is something missing in the existing canon. Something like 1/2 m(-v)^2 for example.

As for being presumed insane for deeply beheld beliefs, that is the price that any pioneer or prophet has to pay I'm afraid. Not that I don't sympathise. At your age I would have felt exactly the same.

However, over the years I've got used to it. In my experience, though, it's only a minority who take such an extreme view and it usually arises from their own insecurities. The majority simply maintain a discrete silence.

[ovyyus]

The key importance of the Bessler Wheel is that its existence >snip< represents a truth which physics is incapable of digesting and has had to dismiss as a fraud despite massive evidence to the contrary...

What 'massive' evidence to the contrary? Bessler never disclosed how his wheel worked.

...This suggests that there is something missing in the existing canon.

The most complex answer is usually never the right one. It seems far more likely that Bessler's principle had little to do with exotic gravity physics and more to do with an ordinary, albeit very clever, application of a free energy source. Bessler even stated that the mathematicians were right, and that so was he. IMO, that statement doesn't suggest a revolutionary new gravity physics that might up end fundamental science.

Science rightly dismisses claims of extraordinary physics when such claims are never experimentally proven. To say that's a refusal by science to see the truth is silly and misleading.

[Grimer]

Grimer wrote:
The key importance of the Bessler Wheel is that its existence >snip< represents a truth which physics is incapable of digesting and has had to dismiss as a fraud despite massive evidence to the contrary...

What 'massive' evidence to the contrary? Bessler never disclosed how his wheel worked.

Grimer wrote:
...This suggests that there is something missing in the existing canon.

The most complex answer is usually never the right one. It seems far more likely that Bessler's principle had little to do with exotic gravity physics and more to do with an ordinary, albeit very clever, application of a free energy source. Bessler even stated that the mathematicians were right, and that so was he. IMO, that statement doesn't suggest a revolutionary new gravity physics that might up end fundamental science.

Science rightly dismisses claims of extraordinary physics when such claims are never experimentally proven. To say that's a refusal by science to see the truth is silly and misleading.

The massive evidence I was referring to was the evidence that the Bessler wheel was genuine and not some kind of fraud. If I hadn't been convinced by John's work that this was so I wouldn't be here. Presumably, neither would you.

I have evidence that there is something missing as you would know if you had read my publications and posts.

Where I do agree with you is that any claim such as mine has to be proven by both rational argument AND experimental proof.

Rational argument is only conclusive and can be ignored (and in my case has been - all the way up to the then Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government, Sir Herman Bondi).

Experimental proof is coercive and cannot be ignored because of its wider implications outside science.