Sunday, 27 May 2012

Gravitywheel - Catch 22?

I note recent comments suggesting that all designs should be shared, so others can study them and build and experiment with them.  I have promised to share mine if the wheel works or fails, but in my experience designs are dismissed by the majority and maintaining that you are right only leads to calls for a proof of principle wheel - is that a catch 22 situation?  Design is ignored without a PoP model but you can't build a PoP model unless you have the correct design.

The definition of catch 22 in the book of that name (Joseph McLennan) is "a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them".  

Now that has a familiar ring to it.  Our situation requires us to build a wheel which uses the force of gravity to move a number of weights causing a wheel to rotate continuously.  Unfortunately we are frustrated by the paradoxical rules which say that what we wish to achieve is impossible, even though it has been done before.

"Begging the question" is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.  I think it was Helmholtz who said that perpetual motion machines must be impossible because  no-one had ever succeeded in building one that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be by reason of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the law of Conservation of Energy.  That is also, ironically, a circular argument.

JC


55 comments:

  1. I think that it would be a good thing if we submit our ideas and concepts, as well-documented as possible. Even if they don't work or are not finished. We could have some kind of central repository.

    After all it is very possible that each of us have a solution to part(s) of the puzzle - and one heck of a puzzle it is. Somebody with "a discerning eye" -perhaps even long after we have passed- may be able to connect the dots and use bits and pieces to eventually arrive and construct a working design.

    So maybe we'd have to share the glory and praise and wealth with others. So what? Maybe we don't even get immediate and colossal financial gain from it. So what? I've said it before and I'll say it again: personally, I don't care. The implications of a working mechanism are so profound it should supersede such dreams. And the money and fame will come anyway - if we publish what we have in a central repository one gets automatic intellectual property and copyright on documents. Who cares if the machine eventually is built out of 5 different "patents" or not?

    I sure don't. And if it doesn't even vaguely resemble Bessler's design doesn't matter one bit. The proof of principle will have enormous impact and more or less automatically vindicate Bessler.

    I say: we should all follow John's generous and courageous example and work together by centralizing and organizing our efforts. The results will be much more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John wrote:

    "I think it was Helmholtz who said that perpetual motion machines must be impossible because no-one had ever succeeded in building one that worked."

    Helmholtz, obviously, was UNfamiliar with Bessler's inventions. IF he had been, then he might have said:

    "Perpetual motion machines must be POSSIBLE because Johann Bessler succeeded in building SEVERAL that worked. If they are POSSIBLE, then it must be by reason of some UNIQUE design that ALLOWS for their operation. This design must be one that allows an OB PM gravity wheel's descending side weights to output MORE energy (written as "energy / mass" after 1905) than is required to lift it's ascending side weights AND also overcome any air and bearing drag. Such a wheel, while continuously turning, does NOT violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We know a bit about standing waves and positive feedback loops . We know that the theory of a P.M. wheel must include some sustainable differential aspect that continues indefinitely . For all practical purposes P.M. itself has already been proven but not in a sense of performing work . In order to understand Bessler's device it is important to notice that he not only was claiming to have a self moving mechanism but also a device which could effect other machines . So even if someone designs a self-mover, in order to be equivalent to Bessler's device it must perform useful work . I sincerely believe that I have the very solution to how this can be done and to a certain extent I have tried to share it ... although there is an aspect to the design I have not yet shared . Finally John I can totally relate to the point of this post . The fact that it hasn't been proven is the only reason it is considered impossible . Bessler hinted at "a better figure" in the MT while at the same time criticizing existing "demonstrations to the contrary " and "perpetual stabilty machines " .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that mention of "a better figure" appears in the note to MT 2:

      "...and from the figure the mathematicians generally showed the impossibility of perpetual motion, just as though one could not bring forth a better figure as evidence."

      That "better figure" would, of course, have been the one Bessler "burned and buried" after his arrest which showed an interior cross sectional view of his wheels. What a tragic waste. If he had NOT been arrested, he might have left the figure intact and today we would have it! Hopefully, we will have something VERY close to it within the year.

      Delete
    2. Assuming anything when it comes to Bessler I think is a mistake . We can listen to other opinions of him and be in agreement with them (or not). I think he was being very bold when he described his machine . I think that the images required to reproduce his device are still in existence to this day . But don't listen to me . It must remain hidden (because Bessler was such a secretive person). That was the true nature of Bessler's device: a large noisy hidden wheel which he could not carry around with him . If you ever really want to know why he smashed his wheels think about the prospect of having to carry one of them in a carriage .

      Delete
    3. I suspect that he made his original discovery of the working design at the "House of Ricters" on a much smaller, table top sized wheel which was only 1 yard in diameter (36 inches) or even less. That certainly would have been portable enough for him to personally convey over to Karl for his inspection.

      I wonder, however, how he maintained security on this prototype when he was not around. Probably just kept it in a locked room or even a cabinet. Was it the remains of that wheel or the larger one he was working on later for the Royal Society that was found after his death? Why can't I shake this feeling that one of the "magic" levers from that wheel was buried with him? His wife at the time knew how important his discovery was and how much time he had invested in it. I can't believe she would just use all of its wooden parts for kindling wood. I wish we could find Bessler's grave and exhume it! Well, maybe someday...

      Delete
  4. Well, in case you think I am dull I also noticed your other point implied but not necessarily expanded upon .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Catch 22 was written by Joseph Heller.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Primemignonite28 May 2012 at 06:07

    "Gravitywheel - Catch 22?" - John Collins

    Nice little essay on this problem, John.

    Eloquent, short and sweet; inspirational of thought, as we've all come to expect?

    Also, I've heard it described otherwise as being an instance of 'incestuous reasoning'.

    Not very distinguished-seeming, I'd say; naughty sounding even, very much like it's usual, main-stream bearers themselves?

    *********************************************************

    For this topic, this time, the @technoguy SHOUT-IT-OUT!!! Word Count Contest is well underway!

    (The final total will be announced toward it's end. All stand by for it . . .)

    Now, waxing a bit less jocular . . .

    Some aberrant, unaware personality types simply cannot control themselves; written, verbal gesticulating being a more than telling sign of their difficulties.

    (Hmmm. It is almost as unattractive as is 'incestuous reasoning' itself. Hmmm.)

    What might be the prognosis for possible recoveries of such sufferers?

    Not high, such symptomatology being set for a lifetime unless self awareness is caused to intrude earlier-on. If such happy confluence does not manifest, sadly then, other collateral sufferers in silence must endure on account, as is the apparent case we have here. (And also, the obvious massively ego-centric aspect adding greatly to the usual, untoward effects.)

    Regarding this compounded problem, one sadly more-and-more prevalent nowadays, it is Marxist politically correct [PC] to be silent, and to 'suck it up', but not here.

    Definitely, not here.

    It is so true as it is said, that if patience-taxing, overbearing gaseous bullies do not have their noses bloodied at least occasionally (and with kindness kept in mind always), then others must and will continue their silent sufferance.

    (We do suffer.)

    While not disallowed, I shall take upon myself the task of ending this especially nasty round of 'outrage in type', as we find here, festering LOUDLY almost daily.

    (Best behave yourself, Ken, and learn some manners for if not, accordingly, difficulties are likely to multiply apace. Only so much patience can be allowed your types-in-tedium and then, "The Curtain Descends"!)

    CHEERS!

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you are in the process of composing a "word cloud" based on the words I emphasize in large case letters in my comments. Yes, I like that idea because it will help promote the "right track" approach I advocate. I capitalize certain words, not to be intended as rudely shouting them, but, rather, to alert readers to how important I think something is.

      Getting on the "right track" so that one can FINALLY start to make REAL progress toward solving the Bessler wheel mystery, is not an easy thing to do and for particularly stubborn types (I'm in THAT catagory!), can require decades of enduring the agony of "wrong track" frustration before one becomes "receptive" enough to switch tracks.

      The "right track" I write of represents the LAST alternative one will pursue in order to finally achieve success and requires the candidate to completely free himself of all preconceived notions about how Bessler's wheels worked based upon the mountain of "wrong track" designs he finds on the web and even in the Bessler literature! He must also free himself of any temptation to "revisit" his OWN "wrong track" designs of yesteryear (and yesterDECADE!). As Bessler would have said, he must "...climb higher on Jacob's ladder, and learn to shun all superstition."

      Once so purified, the newbie "right tracker" must be prepared to build / model more than he ever thought possible while using the two DT portraits as his MAIN source of information about the ACTUAL design Bessler found. Avoiding ALL OTHER "free energy" websites, except for this one, of course, is also recommended lest one waste his limited construction / study time and be seduced by the never-ending parade of USELESS "wrong tracker" designs found on them.

      Yes, it is a difficult track to follow. Few reach its end in a millenium, but for those that did the satisfaction of bringing a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel to "glorious completion" was WELL worth it!

      Delete
  7. If the wheel i am now building works i will be posting it on the internet .


    - Ealadha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Post away, no one is stopping you!

      Delete
  8. There are actually quite a few right track configurations because once you have the secret it is not that critical.
    If you don't have it, then all your attempts will fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that the "right track" actually does not absolutely refer to a PARTICULAR design, but rather to the CORRECT APPLICATION of Bessler's three principles (i.e., The Preponderance Principle, the Connectedness Principle, and the critically important Secret Principle) to VARIOUS similar designs. Bessler chose to apply these three principles to an 8 weighted lever wheel, but he also suggests that they will work with a 12 and even a 24 weighted lever wheel!

      Hmmm...8, 12, and 24. All multiples of 2 and 4. I guess we could also include 16 and 20 weighted lever wheels in the sequence to make it complete. Now we have 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weighted levers which indicates either 4, 6, 10, or 12 PAIRS of DIAMETRICALLY opposed weighted levers within a wheel's drum.

      During a drum's CW rotation, each pair will, in its turn, align with the drum's 9:00 and 3:00 positions at which time the 9:00 lever's weight will be closest to the axle and the 3:00 lever's weight will be in contact with its rim stop and farthest from the axle. Then, 180 degrees of drum rotation later, the two weights within any pair will have exchanged positions AND their distances from the axle or, as Bessler wrote [my interpretations included in brackets]:

      "These [the lead weights] come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position [where its lever's pivot is at the 3:00 position of a CW rotating drum and there the weight attached to the end of the lever finally rests on its rim stop], the other takes up a position nearer the axle [where its lever's pivot is at the 9:00 position of the CW rotating drum]. Later [after 180 degrees of drum rotation], they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time [meaning that TWO "swaps" or interchanges of the weights and their levers takes place for EACH complete drum rotation].

      Delete
  9. I keep looking in here occasionally but things often seem to go quite dull with the same things being readdressed over and over.

    There is a way of breaking the catch 22 situation, and it's already been suggested several times. It's to publish designs that haven't worked. It gives nothing away of other people's ideas but it does save everyone reinventing what has already been tried and failed.
    Sadly, this idea has not been adopted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The internet is already awash in designs that don't work and that is why I caution prospective "right track" Bessler mobilists to AVOID wasting time even looking at them. One will learn NOTHING important from them except, maybe, that everyone is trying to find a design that keeps the center of driving force to one side of a wheel's axle.

      Delete
  10. Very good idea,..Full marks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as the small wheel is concerned , yes , he could have transported that one but remember people said that it was too small to be of any use even if the principle was valid .
    "The machine stood 3 feet high, and was mounted in such a fashion that anyone could walk all around it."..."But, of course, there were some nit-pickers who had to come along(they're always the first to criticise something good.) They said that though my machine was a work of true artistry, it was almost certainly a mere curio, which could probably not be constructed on a larger scale. So it would never be of practical value, and would remain a mere toy. But, if I could build one 5 ells high, then my claims would be believed."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think those negative "nit-pickers" Bessler encountered just did not want to admit that he had made an astounding discovery. I've encountered types like this myself. They try to pump up their own sagging egos by putting down anyone around them which they perceive as achieving something of value. The best way to handle them is to IGNORE them and listen to the positive and supportive people in one's life. Count Karl was probably the most positive and supportive person Bessler ever knew and that was probably the main reason that Bessler regarded him so highly.

      Delete
    2. TG,
      I can stand your shorter messages . Thank you .

      Delete
  12. First thing to do: Show all of Bessler's complete books, with every image available in them unaltered (even the Maschinen Tractate, wich we have access to, but some are not the original drawings) with free access, because some of us don't have the money to buy them and even a homeless person could be the one capable of unlocking such a device. Second thing to do: Separate fact from fiction... I see some of you, trying for years to solve this riddle, relying on Bessler's words, when obviously you choose wich of his words to use ( those that better fit the design you think will work). Are the conversations from the Castle fact or fiction? Did he really say that springs were used? If so, how can anyone discard the use of springs? Did he use those two outter pendulums on his first and smaller wheel? What the hell did he need those wood beems beeing lifted through the axle from the outside on some of his wheels? speed control? what about heavier pendulums?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, how many attempts did he make before succeeding? Because some of us relly so much on the functionality of our designs without trying them, that when we do, we become frustrated when they obviously come to a stop, because building such a device is expensive, at least for me, and then we imagine some other design and try to apply it and fail again, and again, and again. Did Bessler own some kind of a woddshop or something? was lead or steel extra cheap in the 18th century? who was behind his quest money wise before he solved the enigma?

      Delete
    2. "First thing to do: Show all of Bessler's complete books...with free access..."

      Just what JC needs to hear with the recession getting worse over in Britain!

      "...when obviously you choose wich of his words to use ( those that better fit the design you think will work)."

      I don't. I want my design to agree with ALL of Bessler's words.

      "Are the conversations from the Castle fact or fiction? Did he really say that springs were used? If so, how can anyone discard the use of springs?"

      Those "conversations" are fictional. Yes, he DID admit he used springs in his wheels. I don't discard them and have stated REPEATEDLY that they are CRITICAL to the operation of his wheels. NO SPRINGS = NO PM!

      "Did he use those two outter pendulums on his first and smaller wheel?"

      Possibly. But they are NOT necessary to the operation of his wheels. They are an add-on devices that help give the illusion that his wheels were outputting more power than they actually did.

      "What the hell did he need those wood beems beeing lifted through the axle from the outside on some of his wheels?"

      Another add-on device intended to make the wheels look more powerful than they actually were AND to generate noise to mask the noises being produced inside of a drum by its active sub wheel's weights as they landed on their rim stops and their various gravity latches as they flopped around during drum rotation.

      "Also, how many attempts did he make before succeeding?"

      I think he tried 300 different designs / variations over 10 years before finding THE one. That's about one every two weeks!

      "Did Bessler own some kind of a woddshop or something?"

      He probably always kept a small shop in his house. He also had relatives involved in various trades and could use their facilities / tools when necessary.

      "was lead or steel extra cheap in the 18th century?"

      Lead was widely available and used in plumbing since ancient times (indeed, the word "plumber" comes from the Latin word for lead, "plumbum". As a clockmaker Bessler would have been familiar with hand casting lead to make cylindrical clock weights. The weights he used inside of his wheels were made of lead and cylindrical in shape.

      "...who was behind his quest money wise before he solved the enigma?"

      He was apparently self-funded during his 10 year search and often went hungry so he could buy materials for his wheels. He suffered much and wanted the 100,000 thalers "up front" as compensation. I think it was excessive, but, ultimately, anything is only worth what one can get for it at the time. Apparently, most of his day also considered it excessive. I would have advised him to have lowered the price and then taken a percentage of future profits. Bessler was a very stubborn man and that's one of the main reasons we have not had the use of his inventions for almost 3 centuries now.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your answers technoguy. I wish i could try one device every 2 weeks, but unfortunately I do not have a way oh achieving this

      Delete
  13. Es gibt viele hier, was bedeutet, oder unverblümt behauptet, Bessler das Geheimnis zu kennen und zu denen, die es zu erfassen in Wahrheit wissen, es ist überhaupt kein Geheimnis, sondern nur die kunstvolle Anwendung der Dinge, die bereits bekannt sind. Das Rätsel der einen und £ 4 ist, wenn nicht von mir allein gelöst dann von mir unter anderem. Oh! wie wir gelten sagte geringes Gewicht, um es zu hissen und die Begleiter selbst an die lange und Kreuz nur mit dem Ziel der Rückkehr am Ende zurück zum Anfang.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More very important clues. Thanks Chris.

      I like the part about "...with the goal [being] the return at the end to the beginning."

      This is another critical feature of any design for a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel. After ANY particular interval of its drum rotation is completed, ALL of its weighted levers must assume the SAME orientations relative to the drum's radial supports that they had at the beginning of the interval of rotation. Thus, the initial orientations of the weighted levers must REPEAT a number of times per drum rotation that is always equal to the number of rotational increments per complete drum rotation. For Bessler's largest two-directional wheels, this number was 8.

      Delete
    2. I'm not pretending that the above is from Bessler . It's authored by yours truly . Just having a little fun with google translate .

      Delete
    3. I wasn't really sure if it was Bessler's or not because there are alot of non-Bessler German quotes floating around out there, but it DOES contain "right track" features that I recognized. I assume you extracted these from my previous comments.

      Delete
    4. No it was off hat . It implies something of my idea of what Bessler's "excess weight" principle was .

      Delete
  14. EUREKA , i have the solution , the solution is to put the weights on one side of the wheel only and leave the other side empty .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but repeating it every half turn gets old really fast :-)

      Delete
  15. Regarding publishing failed wheel designs, It would be much better if the idea was adopted rather than coming out with bland statements like "The internet is already awash in designs that don't work…"; It isn't. In a previous posting a request for all these resulted in just one pointer, and that was to MT!

    Maybe the know-all who has access to all these sites might like to publish a comprehensive list of where they might all be found - I'd sure be grateful for it, because although I've spent a lot of time searching, I've found very little. I suspect what we'll get instead is another huge multipart posting that again says basically nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great Bear, all of the failed mechanical designs tend to fall into only a few classes of devices and, yes, MT is a good source for these. You might also try visiting Donald Simanak's site which has a page titled "Museum of Unworkable Devices". He covers these various classes of failed designs and explains why they will not work. Many "free energy" sites may also have galleries of various designs that members posted over the years.

      Delete
  16. With computer simulations, one can try a new device every day! I am convinced that THE design Bessler found will be reveal in the coming year. You might want to wait until that happens and then try building it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A POX on these blogspot.com blogs! The comment above was supposed to be a reply to Anonymous 29 May 2012 10:17 and not a new comment. Don't know why it wound up down here!

      Delete
    2. That sure would be incredible. Technoguy would you be so kind to explain me how MT 129, MT 133 and MT 134 work? Also what is MT 143 suppose to be? Thank you

      Delete
    3. In 129 it looks like the position of the wheel causes a weight I to drop and suck air into the bellows. 180 degrees of wheel rotation later, the weight I collapses the bellows and forces air out of it. The expansion of the bellows at E pushes it away from between those V shaped surfaces and the contraction of the bellows at F allows the end of the bellows to move closer to the pointed bottom of the V shaped surface there. The idea is that this will then shift the heavy metal rods penetrating the axle at A toward the left side of the wheel to shift the CoM of the two metal rods toward the left side and produce CCW rotation of the wheel. This design does NOT work.

      In MT 133 we see more bellows at work in an attempt to make a perpetually rotating ratchet. This time the bellows are located at B and C and interconnected with a pipe passing through the axle. As the tooth shaped rim weights sag at F, they force the attached pipe A down and collapse the bellows at C This then forces water or mercury in the bellows at C to be pumped up to the bellows at B and makes the wheel top heavy so that it will then rotate toward whatever side its ratchet stop (not shown) will allow it to turn. There would, of course, be many more bellows and their connecting pipes than illustrated. Bessler even provides an alternative mechanism that uses the rim weights to raise a weighted lever H toward the top of wheel. This design will NOT work.

      MT 134 shows two more variations of MT 133 only this time the sagging of the weighted levers A causes the ropes going through pulleys C to lift the weighted rod B toward the top of the wheel. The idea is that this will shift the CoM of the weights to the top of the axle making the wheel top heavy so that it will rotate in whatever direction its ratchet stop (not shown) will allow it to. E shows an alternative way of shifting the CoM. Yet another unworkable design.

      MT 143 shows a perpetual see-saw type mechanism. The idea is that as the horizontal arms rock up and down, the intermeshed gears attached to their ends will cause their attached weighted levers to swing from one side of their gears to the other and thereby shift the CoM of all four weights from one side to the other of the central vertical support to achieve a perpetual rocking motion. This design is also unworkable and will remain static regardless the orientations of the horizontal arms or where the CoM of the weights happens to be located.

      Delete
  17. So where is the internet awash with all these failures?

    All I see is some odd comments about why something shouldn't work. There are very few places where someone has published details of what looks like a very promising design to find that it hasn't worked. My efforts have all been checked through detailed spreadsheet calculations yet have failed to work as expected. Hence many are doomed to trying the same designs with similar results.

    Remember what this idea is about. It's to publish promising projects that have ended up as failures - preventing others from going down those same paths. If one can find that their proposed project has already been tried and doesn't work, then they can move onto something else and save a lot of time and expense.

    Best of all, no one has to give away their own ideas as everyone here plays their cards very close to their chest.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I posted this link in the next entry:

    http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp/chap23/page1.htm

    It has a short history of attempts at perpetual motion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They all failed for the same reason. PM is not physically possible. No other comments are necessary once you understand the physics behind the reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "PM is not physically possible."

      ONLY if the particular design used does not allow the loss of energy / mass by the descending side weights to EXCEED the amount regained by the ascending side weights and the various materials (air molecules and metal bearing surfaces) that place drag upon the device. In Bessler's amazing wheels, this excess loss of energy / mass by the descending side weights WAS taking place.

      Delete
    2. PM is not possible.
      OB wheels are especially not possible.
      Once you understand the definition of PM, and the way the geometries of nature are connected - motion, the four fundamental forces, all other forces derived from the 4 - you'll understand why.

      Ken's design won't work, now or ever, for the same reason all of the other attempts on that website I posted don't work.

      Why do all these wheels/devices refuse to budge? The same reason.
      You only get out of a machine, as simple or as complex as you want to make it, what you put into it.

      Gravity makes no (energy) contribution to a wheel and axle containing a group of levers. It simply holds it down on the floor.

      Gravity especially doesn't 'facilitate the conversion of mass to energy'. Mass is a simple measurement, a property of matter. It's not convertible because there is nothing to convert. Matter can be converted to energy, but the particles destroyed and produced retain the same measurement of mass, nothing is lost or regained. The statements Ken makes have no basis in reality. The subject has nothing to do with simple machines. John's readers probably get a good chuckle though.

      Delete
    3. My responses to the above ERRONEOUS (as usual!) assertions by Doug are as follows:

      "Ken's design won't work, now or ever, for the same reason all of the other attempts on that website I posted don't work."

      It's NOT my design, but rather Johann Bessler's. I do AGREE that what I've described SO FAR will NOT work. This is ONLY because the Preponderance and Connectedness Principles it uses are not, by themselves, sufficient to make a "runner". However, that situation WILL change dramatically when the Secret Principle is finally obtained and applied to the design. That principle requires the CAREFUL application of spring tension to the weighted levers.

      "You only get out of a machine, as simple or as complex as you want to make it, what you put into it."

      Correct and the tens of pounds of lead that Bessler used in his wheels represents an ENORMOUS amount of energy! Enough to keep an unloaded wheel turning for BILLIONS of years!

      "Gravity especially doesn't 'facilitate the conversion of mass to energy"

      Are you SERIOUS?! If it was not for gravity, then a heavier weight located a certain distance from a balance beam's fulcrum would not be able to transfer some of its own energy / mass to another less massive weight at the other end of the fulcrum and the same distance from the fulcrum. Without the presence of gravity, no energy / mass transfer takes place, and the weights will remain motionless.

      "Matter can be converted to energy, but the particles destroyed and produced retain the same measurement of mass, nothing is lost or regained. The statements Ken makes have no basis in reality. The subject has nothing to do with simple machines. John's readers probably get a good chuckle though."

      When Bessler's wheels were running and overcoming various drags while operating outside machinery, their weights were constantly LOSING energy / mass with each drum rotation. However, there was never any change in the NUMBER of subatomic particles within the weights of the drum. The number of particles would remain constant over time, but each particle would just weigh a bit less due to its loss of energy / mass. Meanwhile, the subatomic particles of the devices being operated and thereby GAINING energy / mass from the wheel's weights would INCREASE a bit and they would weigh more.

      Yes, I do agree that JC's readers are getting a "good chuckle", but they are NOT chuckling at ME or the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery!

      Delete
  20. Ken wrote:
    "If it was not for gravity, then a heavier weight located a certain distance from a balance beam's fulcrum would not be able to transfer some of its own energy / mass to another less massive weight at the other end of the fulcrum and the same distance from the fulcrum. Without the presence of gravity, no energy / mass transfer takes place, and the weights will remain motionless."

    Mass is not converted to energy. They are the same thing, as you've noted. Measurements of *matter*. One - mass - is a *measurement* of the object's acceleration from an applied force, and the other is a different *measurement*: the potential energy contained in that mass if it was all released. The two different measurements are equated by Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence formula.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

    Read the introduction in the wiki and the first section, conservation of mass and energy.
    It explains the equivalence principle in more detail.

    When two weights are placed on a seesaw, they don't exhange energy with each other across the fulcrum. They each have an energy relationship with the mass of the earth; the seesaw isn't magic. This is Ken's very basic misconception of energy.

    The weight's potential energy is determined by their relative positions from a reference point (usually the ground). But the weights didn't gain this potential energy, this position, by themselves. The potential energy was obtained from the person who put them there. Otherwise, the weights just sit there, their mass measurement *representing* potential energy, being held at the reference point by gravity.

    If you balance the weights, then stand there and rock the seesaw back and forth, the weights gain and lose energy *independently* of each other, from your muscle energy, interacting through the seesaw, pulling (or pushing) the weights against gravity. They don't exchange it with each other. They each have an independent relationship with the mass of the earth. The thing they have in common, the seesaw, is simply the part of the machine-system that wastes your energy - at the fulcrum and dragging through the air.

    You could simplify the analogy even further.Get rid of the seesaw and hold the two weights in your hands. The weights are receiving energy directly from your body. If you don't move the weights, you aren't doing any work, the weights aren't moving through a distance. They still represent potential energy given to them by your muscles. If you lift the weights up and down, their positions change, your muscles convert chemical energy into mechanical energy, the muscles heat up, and you sweat. But the *conversion* of energy takes place in you, not in between the weights. The seesaw would make it easier on you because of mechanical advantage, but it would take you longer to receive the same benefit to your muscles if your goal was to get in shape.

    Chuckle, chuckle. Magic levers and seesaws.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You should seriously consider requesting a partial refund for any tuition fees you paid for all of those physics courses you claim to have taken! Chuckle, chuckle!

    "When two weights are placed on a seesaw, they don't exhange energy with each other across the fulcrum. They each have an energy relationship with the mass of the earth; the seesaw isn't magic. This is Ken's very basic misconception of energy."

    Gravity does NO work on the weights. The heavier weight will ALWAYS supply the energy / mass needed to lift the lighter weight against the pull of gravity. This can ONLY happen IF the heavier weight transfers some of its energy / mass through the balance beam to the lighter weight. Indeed, the Earth's gravity field is not even necessary. One would get the same results if the weights were placed on a balance beam aboard a spinning space station so that CF would be applied to the weights.

    Like many, you are completely confused by the concept of energy / mass and how it can, literally, "flow" from one object to another. I don't see why people have a mental block when it comes to this key concept of 20th century physics. I mean, in the Thermodynamics of the 19th century, no one seemed to have any problem imagining heat energy as being analogous to a fluid that would flow from a one body to a cooler body. When it comes to the weights in my balance beam example, the energy / mass flows from the object with more energy / mass (the heavier weight) to the object with less energy / mass (the lighter weight). But, this transfer only takes place through the beam and when a force (gravity or CF) is present to "enable" the process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work#Force_and_displacement

    "A most common example is the work done by gravity – see diagram. The object descends along a curved path, but the work is calculated from d cos(angle)= h , which gives the familiar result mgh."

    I guess you'd better get in the wiki and start editing it, if you think it's wrong.

    Like many, you are completely confused by the different forms energy can take. Thermal energy is kinetic energy of molecules, atoms, electrons, or particles in plasmas.

    Heat is thermal energy in the process of transfer or conversion across a boundary of one region of matter to another, as a result of a temperature difference.

    Heat exchanged across a boundary may cause changes other than a change in thermal energy. For example, it may cause phase transitions, such as melting or evaporation, which are changes in the configuration of a material. Since such an energy exchange is not observable by a change in temperature, it is called a latent heat and represents a change in the potential energy of the system.
    (From the entry on thermal energy)

    Forms of energy

    In the context of physical sciences, several forms of energy have been defined. These include:
    Thermal energy, thermal energy in transit is called heat
    Chemical energy
    Electric energy
    Radiant energy, the energy of electromagnetic radiation
    Nuclear energy
    Magnetic energy
    Elastic energy
    Sound energy
    Mechanical energy
    Luminous energy
    Mass (E=mc²)
    These forms of energy may be divided into two main groups; kinetic energy and potential energy. Other familiar types of energy are a varying mix of both potential and kinetic energy...

    ...Classical mechanics distinguishes between potential energy, which is a function of the position of an object, and kinetic energy, which is a function of its movement. Both position and movement are relative to a frame of reference, which must be specified: this is often (and originally) an arbitrary fixed point on the surface of the Earth, the terrestrial frame of reference. It has been attempted to categorize all forms of energy as either kinetic or potential: this is not incorrect, but neither is it clear that it is a real simplification, as Feynman points out:

    These notions of potential and kinetic energy depend on a notion of length scale. For example, one can speak of macroscopic potential and kinetic energy, which do not include thermal potential and kinetic energy. Also what is called chemical potential energy is a macroscopic notion, and closer examination shows that it is really the sum of the potential and kinetic energy on the atomic and subatomic scale. Similar remarks apply to nuclear "potential" energy and most other forms of energy. This dependence on length scale is non-problematic if the various length scales are decoupled, as is often the case ... but confusion can arise when different length scales are coupled, for instance when friction converts macroscopic work into microscopic thermal energy.
    (from the entry on energy)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doug wrote:

    " 'A most common example is the work done by gravity – see diagram.' [quoted from an erroneous Wiki article]

    I guess you'd better get in the wiki and start editing it, if you think it's wrong."

    It IS wrong and the Wiki author of that erroneous information, like YOU, still does NOT understand the concept of energy / mass even though it is an ESTABLISHED FACT in physics nowadays! Gravity does NO work! The work was PREVIOUSLY done by whatever contributed some of its energy / mass to initially raise the object against the force of the gravity field. I don't have the time to correct ALL of the errors in Wiki articles...the "free" encyclopedia on the web (I guess one gets what he pays for! LOL!)

    Anyway, I am quite aware of the various "forms" of energy you cite (do you EVER get your information from sources OTHER than Wiki???) and they ALL involve some object which, potentially, can transfer some of its energy / mass to another object. It's really very simple once one finally "gets it". I hope that, someday, even YOU will finally "get it".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ken writes:
    "The work was PREVIOUSLY done by whatever contributed some of its energy / mass to initially raise the object against the force of the gravity field."

    Right, I've said that at least a dozen times on this blog. Gravity fields are akin to batteries; you can store energy in them, by lifting weight into higher positions for later use. When the weight is allowed a degree of freedom to fall in the field, gravity is returning the work you did. Your balance beam example would require someone, or something, with energy, to lift the weights onto it before the interaction between them, courtesy of gravity, takes place.

    If you can find a more reputable source that says gravity doesn't do work, and a source that says parts of a macroscopic system exhange mass back and forth between them, feel free to post it here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doug wrote:

    "Gravity fields are akin to batteries; you can store energy in them, by lifting weight into higher positions for later use."

    Wrong. You store NO energy-mass IN the gravity field itself. It is "stored" or, rather, ADDED to the energy-mass of the object lifted in the gravity field.

    "When the weight is allowed a degree of freedom to fall in the field, gravity is returning the work you did."

    Wrong. When the weight drops it will ONLY LOSE some of its energy-mass content IF it transfers it to other objects during its descent. IF it does transfer some of its energy-mass to other objects, that energy-mass is provided SOLELY by the falling OBJECT, NOT by the gravity field.

    "Your balance beam example would require someone, or something, with energy, to lift the weights onto it before the interaction between them, courtesy of gravity, takes place."

    Correct. How the two weights got on the balance beam is IRRELEVANT. BUT, they will only transfer energy-mass between them IF the beam is there, IF the gravity field (or another suitable force field) is present, and, most importantly, IF the position of the fulcrum allows one of the weights to LOSE some of its energy-mass at a GREATER rate than the rate at which the rising weight must GAIN it in order to rise.

    There are MANY websites that discuss the equivalence of energy and mass. Some of them "get it right" and many, unfortunately, do not. You will need to do your own research on this, but beware of any website that states things like "gravity does work", "mass is converted into energy", or "energy is converted into mass". All of these statements are WRONG! Gravity NEVER does any work. It can only facilitate work being done by one object on another in the gravity field. Also, mass does NOT have to be converted into energy. It is ALREADY energy. And, conversely, mass does not have to be converted into energy because it is ALREADY energy. Remember that energy and mass are the SAME thing. If a website can not get that FACT straight, don't waste anymore time reading anything else there!

    When Bessler's wheels were rotating and operating attached "outside" machinery, the moving parts of those machines GAINED some energy-mass and the WEIGHTS within the wheels LOST some energy-mass. NO fission or fusion reactions were taking place within Bessler's wheels. Rather, the eccentricity of the "closed paths" of the weights with respect to the wheel's axle allowed the descending side weights to LOSE some of their energy-mass content at a slightly greater rate than the rate at which energy-mass was taken up by the ascending side weights and the atoms of air and metal bearings that were heated by the motion of the wheel. Each weight, after completing a revolution around the axle, would have a slightly lower energy-mass content which was on the order of a fraction of a picogram.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks very nice blog!

    Check out my web page ... see more

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't even know the way I ended up here, but I thought this put up was good. I do not recognize who you might be however definitely you are going to a well-known blogger in the event you aren't already.

    Cheers!

    my homepage ... to College Orgies

    ReplyDelete
  28. Great article, exactly what I wanted to find.

    Here is my web site in nude model

    ReplyDelete
  29. Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems
    as though you relied on the video to make your point.
    You obviously know what youre talking about, why throw away your intelligence
    on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something informative
    to read?

    my page; http://pornharvest.com/index.php?m=2495277

    ReplyDelete
  30. I love what you guys are up too. Such clever work and exposure!
    Keep up the wonderful works guys I've added you guys to my blogroll.

    My page :: 1

    ReplyDelete
  31. Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you writing this article and the rest
    of the site is also really good.

    my site drunk teen Girl play

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Clues Here and on Besslerwheel forum

I’ve decided to go back to my original plan which was to share everything I’ve discovered and know, or believe about Bessler’s wheel.  It ha...