An article in support of we perpetual motionists was brought to my attention by my good friend James, at an extremely apposite moment as I had already written this short piece for my next blog. The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”
I enjoyed the article even if I did not completely accept his many arguments in support of us. But his use of the word perpetual motioionists was what I objected to and which prompted me to write about the use of this term.
It has been a a matter of mild concern for me for a number of years, this habit of calling us perpetual motionists. Such labels do us no favours in my opinion, because the very term, perpetual motion, suggests a degree of naivety in us, which is untrue; most of us are experienced and knowledgeable about the world of physics and in particular mechanics. Perpetual motion means literally, continuous motion or activity, which of itself is quite accurate. The problem lies in people's associations of the term Perpetual Motionists with Creationists, Flat Earthers and other pseudosciences which then attracts the unwelcome attention of the sceptics, the scornful and their derisory comments. But there are reasons for their contempt for our work.
Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside. But because so little was known about gravity (and still is) no-one could offer an explanation which would show how it might assist in this continuous motion.
Because continuous motion has to have an external supply of energy, such a term could also imply that combustion engines which require an external continuous supply of energy in the form of petroleum are also perpetual motion machines; and electric motors too, as long as they are supplied with electricity; and steam engines as long as they have steam. They are all perpetual motion machines apparently, all moving continuously as long as they have the fuel necessary to their action.
We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc. We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source. In fact those so-called energy sources I mentioned, steam, petrol, diesel and electricity are not by themselves energy sources. They each require a combination of effects to occur at the right moment to generate the power associated with them, and the same applies to gravity. Without those other energy sources working together with other combinations they wouldn't provide energy either and without gravity, Bessler's wheel would not work. We need gravity to enable the weights to fall, and it is then up to us to find a way to generate continuous rotation from that initial fall.
BUT.... there is one major difference between the ones I mentioned above and gravity. They are each fed into their specific machine via pipe or cable; gravity, on the other hand, is present everywhere both inside and outside the gravity wheel. Why do I think it iks still possible to make use of gravity to drive a gravity wheel? The answer as always, lies in analogy. I have from time to time likened the action of gravity to the force of the wind. Wind is also everywhere about the windmill and it is the blades of the windmill which are moved by the wind and so it is with gravity, the weighst are moved by its force.
So deride perpetual motionists if you wish but don't lump us Bessler-wheelers together with them.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
