Friday, 15 November 2013

Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true.

I was taught that Perpetual Motion machines were a violation of nature's laws and therefore impossible. Later I discovered there were various interpretations of what a perpetual motion machine is, but I understood that the one I was interested in, was a machine that used no additional energy beyond that needed to start it. This was described as a closed system with no access to any energy other than that with which it was started. I was told to imagine a flywheel which was spun up to a high speed after which it just ran and ran - until friction, or work, slowed it down to a stop - why? ... because it had used up all of the bit of energy used to start it and there was no more available. Then I thought, friction or making it do work was like applying the brakes on car that was coasting down hill without the engine on, to bring it to a stop. I considered that the car was made to coast down hill by the force of gravity.

But surely I thought, the energy provided by gravity was constant, continuous (and perpetual as far as we are concerned), and although you could say that it was external to the car, it wasn't just external to the car, it was all around it and in and through it, but however you vieweds it, it was not part of a closed system, and therefore it was available as an enerfy source- so why was it impossible for gravity to drive a wheel ...continuously?

To the title of this blog, I would add, Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true, until you find evidence that it isn't true.  Gravity-driven wheels are impossible, or so I was taught to believe, but then I found evidence that that wasn't true.

It's a strange thing, belief.  There are so many beliefs that appear to conflict with each other, that one must conclude that a lot of them are just plain wrong.  The problem seems to lie in the establishment of a theory which seems to answer the question at the the time.  Assumptions that the theory is right, lead to additional speculations which appear proven when based on the originating theory.  But suppose the original theory is right but doesn't encompass all possibilities, or the originator simply did not consider suffiently other potential effects?  This in my opinion is the case with the gravity-wheel.  There is a way in which no law is violated and no dramatic reconsideration of the laws of physics necessary, that allows Bessler's wheel to operate quite legitimately without recourse to such theatrical conclusions.  It's another case for occam's razor, it's the simplest exlanation.

I believe this is so and that it is the only way to explain Bessler's wheel in a way that satifies the scientific experts as well as those of us who know beyond a shadow of doubt that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine.

JC
 

10 comments:

  1. I'm glad you brought this up again as it's a perennial source of confusion...

    It is correct that dissipative losses such as friction are unavoidable in practice - entropy increases. It is also true that perpetual motion from a closed system is also, thus, impossible.

    If a motion persists despite such losses, then it is, by definition, an open system - it is receiving energy from 'outside' what is being considered as a 'closed system' - in other words, it is a system expected to be closed, but which is in fact open... an inadvertently open system, if you will.

    As far as the thermodynamics of basic mechanics are concerned, a gravitational system (such as rising and falling weights) is thermodynamically closed, because equal work is done lifting and dropping the masses. In fact, as noted previously, losses occur, hence it is also a dissipative system.. ultimately, it converts some form of input energy (say, muscle, or rather, chemical energy) into low grade heat, via loss mechanisms such as friction and aerodynamic drag.

    These things are true facts, and we are not being misled as to their veracity - they're gospel.


    A gravity wheel however would work on the principle of lifting something when it's lighter, and then dropping it when it's heavier. Crucially though, this variation in effective weight has to be free - it has to occur automatically and spontaneously, without an equal input of energy being required in order to effect it.

    Compare this to, say, an electric motor, where the magnetic force is varied via the application of a changing current. In such a system, Lenz's law plays the role of fulfilling Newton's 3rd law, and generates a counter voltage equal and opposite to any applied voltage that performs mechanical work on the system. So the amount of work performed upon the rotor is precisely equal to the chemical work done within the battery, or power station, as well as all the heat losses that occur in the intervening cables and circuitry, via resistive losses courtesy of Joules second law for heat.

    So a "free energy" magnet motor would would need to apply this changing force off its own back, without any additional work done 'outside' the system, feeding energy back in.

    Although we can't vary the strength of the mass / gravity interaction via the direct application of electricity (extreme relativistic effects notwithstanding), we have various other ways of doing so - eg. counter-balancing, leverage etc. etc are means of modulating force levels. So if we can find one that's free, as Bessler clearly did, we'll have our free energy gravity wheel.


    But such systems are not closed! They SEEM closed only from the classical perspective. And if that's all we view them from, then yes, energy can be created and destroyed, ex nihilo, tearing up the rule book.

    Except, that's the wrong perspective to view the system from. Although we might use them in classical systems, the fields manifesting the forces are not-at-all classical.. they're quantum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suppose we were to gain 'free' energy from an asymmetric magnetic interaction - say, attracting in when flux density (B) is high, then attracting back out when it's lower - the excess work performed has come at the expense of the virtual photon exchanges that ARE the magnetic force.

      So we've attracted in when B is high, and then moved back out when it's half as strong - this means twice as many of these quantum energy exchanges have occurred on the inbound stroke, compared to the outbound stroke. We've gained classical energy, but the vacuum activity (of which virtual photons are but one facet) has lost an equal amount of potential... the system is NOT closed, but open to the vacuum.

      If we run the asymmetry in reverse, we lose mechanical energy, and the vacuum potential increases proportionately. However, this time it's a 'non-dissipative loss' - meaning the mechanical energy removed from the system hasn't simply been converted to environmental heat. Rather, calorimetry would show an actual deficit - the energy would appear to disappear!

      Exactly the same distinction applies to a working gravity wheel. The excess work may be accounted for by the actions of the Higgs field, or gravitons (obviously it's far too early to say with any certainty), but what is certain is that it will be sourcing and / or sinking energy to and from the vacuum (depending on the direction of the asymmetry being applied).

      I like the term "directional vacuum coupler"... it normally refers to a type of RF splitter, but it's so apposite since it literally describes what a non-dissipative open thermodynamic system really is.

      The textbooks aren't "wrong", it's just a matter of negotiating the terminology and relevant conditions properly. A system is either thermodynamically closed, or it isn't.. there can be no conflicts or paradoxes!

      Again, this is the reason why we should all be keeping an eye out for non-dissipative losses - sudden drops in net system energy that cannot be explained by friction or drag-type losses alone. Being able to destroy energy this way might not seem particularly useful (though it actually has many wonderous uses), but more importantly the asymmetry responsible will, in principle, be fully reversible.

      Find a non-dissipative loss mechanism and you're halfway to an over-unity gain. That is, such losses are the corollary mechanism - the same asymmetry, inverted.

      Gravity wheels ARE impossible, if the force variation powering them isn't passive. Gravity doesn't change over time (human time anyway), and neither does the Higgs interaction (presumably). Hence, there must be another variable that does...

      Only a-priori beliefs are delusional. Beliefs based in knowledge imply understanding. For instance, Karl didn't merely "believe" Bessler - he knew he was honest because he saw and understood the mechanism.

      Likewise, we know the conditions that preclude OU, as well as we know what the caveats are.. specifically, temporal variance, passive time-dependent rates of change, whatever their nature, are the exceptions that prove the rule. There can be no Noether symmetry for systems based upon time-dependent force variations - clasiccal conservation of energy simply does not apply.

      Quantum CoE does, instead.


      In a similar vein, you can't accurately plot a journey from Earth to Mercury using Newton's laws. Not because the old geezer's wrong, but simply because we've over-extended his validity. We need a different conceptual paradigm, ie. Einstein's, to bridge the divide. Rubbish in, rubbish out - classical conservation laws are simply inapplicable to time-dependent system, which are, by definition, not mechanically conservative.

      It took me a while to fully grasp this too, so i'm ready to re-explain it a few more times yet...

      Delete
  2. Hi Vibrator,
    interesting distinctions - I see you have given this a lot of thought. I invite you to be more radical about beliefs and knowledge: knowledge can and should change when presented with new facts. Belief tends to cling to previous insights and ignore new facts. In my personal opinion, so-called modern science is creating a cult, a belief system, a religion around some of its axioms. There is no reason to think that we are by nature or evolution smarter than earlier generations. When you think about it, the logic and reasoning for earlier errors was quite sound: e.g.
    1) material that will not float on water cannot be used to build ships - they will obviously sink
    2) no flying machines can be built, because obviously, anything that you lift into the air and then let go of, will fall
    3) in general: everything "tends to go down" when not held up, e.g. water comes crashing down a water-fall, people fall off cliffs: so why set up ridiculous postulates that gravity would work on a sphere and pull everything towards its center - even water! such hypothesis are for the esoteric fraction, don't you think?

    In all 3 examples, we are talking about gravity, interesting, isn't it, that it so difficult to grasp?

    I have an inventor friend who gets ideas as inspiration, by intuition. This person trusts his intuition enough to finance the building of his contraptions himself and then looks for a lab to test them. I have been involved in such lab-hunts: the scientific community would not go near it, not even if we offer to pay them for their efforts. We usually get treated as if we were selling them child pornography. The demand always is: explain how it works. If we try, then it is snubbed as unscientific, if we say: find it out yourself, then they get worried about their image in the community. This is not what I would call an open mind, and this is not a culture that will bring forth new ideas or technology. It is a belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And so it goes that those who believe must continually bend a new ear... or act as if they are , thereby probably doing a lot of preaching to an already sold out congregation . So people want evidence of this thing . But really that's all ( what any given person might require of the ' field ' ) beside the point . What's really important is to try new things and to keep searching in spite of the slap down that the laws of science ( as they exist ) give us . I personally don't feel the least bit sorry for the time I've spent on it ... and wish that it was less of a campaign than it has become and more of just a search .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Science has tried to teach us that an overbalanced wheel is a flawed theoretical device and I totally agree but have they been able to prove or disprove perpetual motion based on some OTHER type of device ? Enough said .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bessler (a man of science) brought forth a working overbalanced wheel, and proved to the examiners of the time, that such a device is not only possible but very real.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The wheel self-started due to either stored potential energy or overbalance. You can bet that the examiners would have held on to the rim of the wheel while it was spinning to look for impulses or changes in force/momentum, and they would have done this test at various speeds. Had there been stored potential energy, say in the form of a clockwork-like spring or hanging weight, that energy would have been exhausted rather quickly and the wheel would have slowed or stopped. Either way that finding would have been reported, but it was not. So the wheel had to be powered by overbalance.

    This doesn’t preclude the possibility that there was some type of prime mover, primed by rotation, that was responsible for the shifting of the weights to the overbalanced position, which in turn kept the wheel and prime mover rotating.

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...