Having spent three weeks away recently, I was looking forward to returning to work on my latest version of Bessler's wheel, but this intention has been thwarted by several illnesses in my family. My family comes first so I have managed to spend less than half an hour there, since before the Christmas holidays.. I had hoped to prove my design for my own satisfaction very soon but it looks as though it will have to wait.
This is a little frustrating for me as I wanted to get the model tested before completing it. How can I test an incomplete model? I think that if two mechanism work as I predict they will, then the rest is plain sailing. I just have to complete the other mechanisms.
One of my recurring concerns is reading about other people's theories about what this or that clue meant. The authors sound so confident and yet when I read about how this or that design is supposed to fit in with this or that clue etc, part of me wants to show them the errors they are making, because I know how it is supposed to work.
I understand that everyone has their own pet theories and there can't be two which apply equally if they are different, so why should mine be any more likely to lead to the correct solution? I made a major discovery, possibly as long as two years ago now, and yet I have only recently worked out how to apply it and that after several false starts. I made this important discovery and subsequently found out exactly what Bessler was intending to convey in his various clues. Finding further support for my conclusions became a matter of rereading everything, relating what I found to the clues themselves. This being so I am unceasingly surprised at claims similar to mine but which are clearly no way the same as mine. I read their explanation and the temptation to show them why they are so far off the correct interpretation is difficult to resist. But perhaps it is me who has got the wrong end of the stick, or is it the other guy, or are we both wrong?
What I do know, and this is the vaguest of clues, Scott Ellis founder of the Bessler wheel forum put me on the right track many years ago although I did not recognise it until recently.
For what it's worth, I do not find anything of value in designs for Bessler's wheel which include the use of springs, magnets or temperature variations, I am satisfied that it all hangs on gravity and it will be shown that there is no conflict with the laws of physics. In fact it has to be gravity and it can't break any physical laws.
My feeling is that my understanding is correct and everyone else is wrong. It’s very hard to be a lone voice in the wilderness, as we all are. It’s difficult to feel, know, and speak your truth and be greeted by either the dull thud of indifference or the resounding bellow of opposition, scorn and even anger.
The way you respond says a lot about your character. Do you fold up, shut down, or otherwise retreat from speaking your truth? Do you fight back until you wear yourself out? Do you try to prove that what you are saying is right, and that what everyone else is saying is wrong? But one thing is clear: if the upstart perpetual motionists prove to be right, and the others were wrong, what a day of celebration! So despite opposition and competition I shall continue to seek the solution until I succeed.
May this be an inspiration to you.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
This is a little frustrating for me as I wanted to get the model tested before completing it. How can I test an incomplete model? I think that if two mechanism work as I predict they will, then the rest is plain sailing. I just have to complete the other mechanisms.
One of my recurring concerns is reading about other people's theories about what this or that clue meant. The authors sound so confident and yet when I read about how this or that design is supposed to fit in with this or that clue etc, part of me wants to show them the errors they are making, because I know how it is supposed to work.
I understand that everyone has their own pet theories and there can't be two which apply equally if they are different, so why should mine be any more likely to lead to the correct solution? I made a major discovery, possibly as long as two years ago now, and yet I have only recently worked out how to apply it and that after several false starts. I made this important discovery and subsequently found out exactly what Bessler was intending to convey in his various clues. Finding further support for my conclusions became a matter of rereading everything, relating what I found to the clues themselves. This being so I am unceasingly surprised at claims similar to mine but which are clearly no way the same as mine. I read their explanation and the temptation to show them why they are so far off the correct interpretation is difficult to resist. But perhaps it is me who has got the wrong end of the stick, or is it the other guy, or are we both wrong?
What I do know, and this is the vaguest of clues, Scott Ellis founder of the Bessler wheel forum put me on the right track many years ago although I did not recognise it until recently.
For what it's worth, I do not find anything of value in designs for Bessler's wheel which include the use of springs, magnets or temperature variations, I am satisfied that it all hangs on gravity and it will be shown that there is no conflict with the laws of physics. In fact it has to be gravity and it can't break any physical laws.
My feeling is that my understanding is correct and everyone else is wrong. It’s very hard to be a lone voice in the wilderness, as we all are. It’s difficult to feel, know, and speak your truth and be greeted by either the dull thud of indifference or the resounding bellow of opposition, scorn and even anger.
The way you respond says a lot about your character. Do you fold up, shut down, or otherwise retreat from speaking your truth? Do you fight back until you wear yourself out? Do you try to prove that what you are saying is right, and that what everyone else is saying is wrong? But one thing is clear: if the upstart perpetual motionists prove to be right, and the others were wrong, what a day of celebration! So despite opposition and competition I shall continue to seek the solution until I succeed.
May this be an inspiration to you.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
“For what it's worth, I do not find anything of value in designs for Bessler's wheel which include the use of springs, magnets or temperature variations, I am satisfied that it all hangs on gravity and it will be shown that there is no conflict with the laws of physics”
ReplyDeleteI’m with you all the way with that statement John
In your publication MT of 2007 you say on page 18 “ Drawing number 12 is the first to label the parts with letters, and it is interesting to point out that the letter ‘A’ appears in two guises; sometimes, as here with a straight cross-bar, and sometimes with a bent one. This appears to be a deliberate variation, and I think is intended to be a hint as to some part of the mechanism”
I’m with you all the way with that statement too.
So far as I’m aware you were the first to correctly point (in print) to the heart of the matter.
However, given your more recent statements, it appears you don’t realise how good you are!
Thanks John, it's good to get positive feedback!
DeleteJC
Those that believe Bessler's wheels were "weights only" and did not use springs always seem to forget his own admission that his wheels did use springs only not in the way his enemies claimed which would have been like the windup spiral springs used in clocks in Bessler's time. That suggests to me that he used standard helical expansion type springs. Also there is that note to MT 18 that states "This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place." He tells us here that the use of spring tension to assist in the resetting of the weights against their rim stops in the illustrated wheel does not work as shown, but he will reveal more details of how it could be used in his final working design that was to be illustrated later at the "appropriate place" in the planned book, but, unfortunately, never was.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I've just completed yet another "acid test" of a modification of my basic wheel that I was very sure would finally be "it". It wasn't, but, again, it's given me an idea to try that might correct the problem. Now I believe that I've got my spring placements and tensions correct, but there could be a problem with one of my coordinating ropes and that's what's causing the dropping of the design's center of mass during drum rotation. It's obvious to me that there was a very delicate balance maintained among a variety of forces inside of his wheels. Yes, the design is simple in appearance, but a very delicate balance underlies that appearance and if one does not find it exactly, then the pm effect will not manifest itself. I'm hoping for success before I reach model # 1200 which could happen in a few more months. To crack the nut of Bessler's secret pm method, one must work at it persistently and, even then, have the greatest of luck.
I really don’t think that MT 18 makes any case for the use of springs in the gravity wheel, on the contrary, Bessler says that “seeming is different from being”, having stated previously in MT 17 that “some spectators have gone even further, imagining that with a few springs one can raise certain weights, and therefore the design is well regarded by many” Are you one of those spectators, one of the many?
DeleteMeanwhile, the pattern of movement of weights and arms in MT 18 does fit very well with my design for the small weight armature, now in the public domain for four years already! I believe that this is ‘the principle’ he demonstrates with this image, the principle that “should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows”
I'm really not sure about your belief that “a very delicate balance (is) maintained among a variety of forces inside of his wheels”. Do remember this thing has to haul a wheelbarrow full of bricks 70 feet up the side of a castle.
May I suggest that rather than a “delicate balance” (or overbalance) of forces within in the wheel, what is really needed for success is the kind of violent overbalance that would bite your fingers off if you were stupid enough to get them in the mechanism?
What can I say? Everyone will interpret Bessler's somewhat ambiguous clues in such a way as to support his own particular theory of how his wheels operated. All I know is that I tried many, many "weights only" designs over the years and none of them would keep their center of mass on the wheel's descending side during rotation. Something extra is needed and I am firmly convinced that something extra can be provided by spring tension.
DeleteWhat can I say? After many years of studying Bessler’s clues and actually building ‘wheels’ I am convinced that the “something extra” that is needed is simply extra weight on the descending side, achieved by an ‘unusual’ arrangement of weights and levers. Springs can store and then release energy later, but they cannot create any extra energy or weight.
DeleteSprings can only "create" or actually liberate some energy by losing some of their mass. The springs in Bessler's wheels, however, played a more important role. They could temporarily store lost gravitational potential energy from parts of the wheel where it would normally be wasted by being converted to heat and sound and then releasing that energy to other parts of the wheel where it was needed to help maintain the imbalance of the center of mass of the wheel's weights and levers. Also, don't forget that Bessler himself admitted that his wheel's used springs. I'm not convinced his method will ever be duplicated unless the researcher is thoroughly familiar with the properties of springs as Bessler was.
DeleteJohn, you might consider a "Put Up, or Shut Up" topic to compliment the current topic.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder how many of us have given up on an idea or design because someone says this or that can't be done, without the least bit of proof. Inertia or Centrifugal Force as drivers as an example. How can someone possibly know they cannot work. If they can't prove it, experimentally or mathematically, then they really shouldn't make the statement at all.
Zoelra, you must be a mind reader! I was seriously considering that topic under that precise title! I will write something along those lines but hopefully without causing too much offence.
DeleteI hope you can't mind-read my Bessler design!!
JC
Interesting idea John. You never know ...
DeleteIf John has a blog titled "Put Up or Shut Up", then there would probably be no comments to it!
DeleteSadly, this field consists mostly of people who will endlessly debate about pm, but, after years / decades of work, have nothing to show for it but a kind of hard boiled faith that, somehow, it can be done. I still remain impressed by the demonstrations of the "Yildiz" motor, however, and am convinced the first truly overunity devices will use permanent magnets. But, it would be nice to also show that self motion can be achieved with a mechanical system such as Bessler used. I just hope it happens sometime during our lives.
". . , and am convinced the first truly overunity devices will use permanent magnets. But, it would be nice to also show that self motion can be achieved with a mechanical system such as Bessler used. . . ."
Delete(I take that last to have been meant actually - with a 'purely' mechanical system sans anything magnetic, i.e. gravity purely and solely.)
And, as well, of-late I've accepted this view too.
It is a fact that we do not know that Bessler did not use magnetite as a source for the prime mover which, then in-turn, caused that famously occurring, demonstrated imbalance.
(When some more-or-less explicit statement to the effect that magnetite was NOT used within is found, then this assertion will fail but, until such a time materializes, it has legs. Sorry.)
It is so.
Over the years Karl's recorded statement expressing surprise that no one had thought of what was revealed to him by Bessler before, has kept working within my mind.
Yes indeedy-do, the shocking sight of lodestones being used as a motus, absolutely would have elicited such a verbal report, of such surprise.
"Obvious truths need not be proved." Maxim of Law, original in Latin
What ELSE likely might have done likewise, yet more levers and springs or whatnot, hmm?
This last is not merely a rhetorical query; it needs and deserves a real answer. For it, or some thing fairly near, we all do await . . .
(It is a peculiar, thrilling sensation, being on the same side of an issue with K.B. Necessity herself can make for SOME strange bedfellows, all right.)
James
I would consider it likely that the people examining Bessler's wheels for signs of fraud would, other than checking the axle's end pivots, have thoroughly swept all other surfaces with a compass to see if they could detect any natural lodestone magnets concealed within it that might be magnetically coupling to other magnets hidden in the ceiling above or flooring below the wheel's large diameter drum so as to provide an accelerating torque to the wheel. If they had found any serious deflection from true north with their compass probing, then that would have immediately raised suspicions of fraud. I'm not convinced that Bessler used any sort of magnetic mechanism inside of his wheels.
DeleteI wouldn't.
DeleteWithin the literature are there any such reports existing to the effect that compasses were present while wheels turned? I believe 'not' is the right response as based on the lack according to what I've heard.
". . . I'm not convinced that Bessler used any sort of magnetic mechanism inside of his wheels."
And I am not convinced that they were not.
What indicators are there existing from the many clues-of-old, one way or the other?
Once again, cold reality asserts itself.
Let's not be deluded by mere wish empowered beliefs all masqueraded-up as factual clues. (This would be an unpleasant bow done to Ovyyus but, right is right and wrong is what it is.)
Then, I guess we two are NOT plying the same path here as I thought.
"Contrary IS as contrary DOES."
So much for our little moment of peace.
You are one piece of fine work, Behrendt!
So-be-it.
J.
I think I recall reading a list of items that were collected after Bessler's death as part of his estate and it did include a large compass. At the time I asked myself what use a carpenter and medicinal compounder would have for such an item. Most likely, Bessler would actually provide the examiners of his wheels with the compass whenever the question of it being secretly magnetically driven arose so that they could then personally assure themselves with the compass that that was not the case. There are no specific references to magnetic scans being conducted in the official testings of his wheels, but, in this case, I believe the old saying "Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack" should be applied. Also, I know from my own efforts to achieve magnetic pm that, although magnetic devices are enticingly easier to construct, they are actually far more difficult to work with than purely mechanical designs because the interactions between neighboring magnets tend to be more complex and difficult to manage than the simpler one directional interactions between weights and the center of the earth.
Delete"Most likely, . . ." ? Ha! Why this so very high on the Scale of Certitude?
DeleteIn it's stead why not 'Possibly'?
Of course there is existing no such evidence in support of your fanciful supposition as you admit and, as well, your citation does nothing whatever to underpin any supposedly existing veracity of it.
Yes, it is so that magnetic interactions are things complex, and tough to work with but, are not so really if you know what you desire to accomplish, and the very way to do it.
Such a happy state comes naturally from the understanding all the factors involved FUNCTIONALLY, rather than your mere trade-mark MECHANISTICALLY. The uniform condition of why you fail is to be found in this last.
And . . . to various of others that are likewise afflicted, this might apply nicely as well, it being in fact an intellectual myopia disconnected from the immediate environment, that so-works to prevent results from manifesting, i.e. as in 'out of touch' with reality in THE essential, visceral way. And so many DARE WONDER why they are so miserable and as well, cannot find the moto perpetuo! It is not in any way mystery to they that comprehend.
(But . . . you and I have been over this Reichian territory before, have we not KB? Your uniform dismissal of Dr. Reich and his work, this with obvious relish of hot, flippant contempt, was and is at the base of our troubles, and shall continue to be-so until you get smart, which I believe to be not in the cards, your being the way you are. For an intelligent man you certainly can be a dumb one too. You don't like that as now put into the public record? Then f'ing SUE me!)
From your may hundreds of thousands of tapped words 'we' await tangible RESULTS. So-far, score-wise, it is the words 100% and accomplishment ZERO!
I would recommend that you default back to The Cosmic Vault. It is in serious need of your attention. There you shine; here you do not.
James
". . . Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
Each of us has to believe what we feel is the most probable reality of Bessler's wheels based on our particular interpretations of his "clues". I see nothing in the literature that convinces me his wheels utilized magnetism in any way. The people who examined Bessler's wheels were not dummies. Many were highly educated for their times and, once they saw the wheels were not being driven through their axles, they would have wondered if some invisible forces from outside the wheel were involved. They knew about gravitational, magnetic, and even electrical forces (which were known from ancient times). I have no doubt that they would have checked the clearance spaces between the wheel's periphery and the floor and ceiling. They would have been looking for jets of air and the presence of a magnetic field. Using a simple compass would have allowed for the detection of the latter. That and, of course, checking any rooms above and below the location of the wheel for any devices that might have assisted its motion. Also, I have no idea what your reference to Dr. Reich has to do with me or this blog.
DeleteZoelra....every bit of info is useful....you never know for sure who could be right....we shouldn't end up silencing the right person...it happened with Bessler one can see....to some extent everyone is right here....and, the only problem is that somewhere down the line one gets distracted....every clue is important....we should know what to reject....we should be able to know where one is making the actual mistake....One thing I am very sure is that Ken is only partially right...i.e., at the beginning part...gravity is the source but not the only source...we need a Technic to utilize gravity in the way that is required here....bessler got it right...and he has narrated it in different ways which is being wrongly captured by most...it is a matter of common sense....intense thinking and brooding over the matter, again and again, can create miracles...the solution is simple but extremely difficult to visualize....
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, due to the ambiguity of Bessler's writings and various translation problems, what is a critically important "clue" to one person is often just meaningless nonsense to another. Those who research the Bessler history and writings rarely agree on exactly what is and is not a clue. There is far more subjectivity in this research than objectivity. But, I've found many previously unsuspected clues which I am very convinced are objective and which have led me to the point I am at now. With just a little more luck, I might be able to make it all the way to success. No guarantees of that, of course.
DeleteHello, I believe that there are several ways to make a successful wheel, but millions of ways that don't work.
ReplyDeleteI have been working on this for several years, since early "07" and I have built out hundreds of designs on a nine foot steel wheel and think that I have got to the point that I can predict how a drawn device will behave, I am currently building out my latest design, the first in two years, all that time reworking drawings. I am working on a new principle that had never occurred to me before. It works partially on the principle of connectivity, but in a far different way than I had ever seen before. The parts I have built are looking promising.
About springs, I think that if they are used, would best be used as shock absorbing stops. No wind up spring would work.
Bessler wrote something to the effect that how does a 2 pound weight lift a 4 pound weight, and I now have the answer, it doesn't, not by it's self. But that is all I am going to say because it may give away part of my design. I believe that Bessler misleads the reader with things like this on purpose.
Yes I have read the clues and most of the material, but i don't rely on this because I think Bessler does try to mislead the reader, I use my own knowledge of movement and my own creativity. I think this is necessary, Because who would leave complete instructions, when your trying to hide what you built.
Anyone has a shot at this, but of course I think it is going to be me, or why try? Experience and creativity are the greatest assets of a wheel builder in my opinion, but a little luck wouldn't hurt either.
Thanks Bob
Good luck with your current build. A nine foot diameter wheel is on the large size for a prototype. I do all of my "builds" on a computer monitor because I long ago gave up with the "hands on" approach. It was just too slow and labor intensive for my liking. I also agree that there is more than one way to build an imbalanced pm wheel, but, like you say, they are lost in an ocean of non-runners that the vast, vast majority of researchers are chasing. In the design I am pursuing, the springs play the role of reducing the weight of levers on the wheel's ascending side while simultaneously increasing the weight of the levers on the descending side. This difference causes an automatic shifting action to take place that then will maintain the imbalance of the wheel's center of mass as the wheel rotates. The ropes in my design play the role of controlling and synchronizing the motions of the wheel's levers in a certain way that is absolutely critical to keeping the center of mass on the wheel's descending side. Without the ropes, this coordination is lost and the center of mass will not remain where it's supposed to stay. I've found that there is an incredibly delicate balance required to make Bessler's design work and I'm still struggling with the details of it. I have some of them, but not all yet.
DeleteBessler seems very coy when saying, repeatedly, "one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound" - underlining this ambiguity in his response to Wagner's claim that "to date, no mechanical arrangement has ben found fit to the task", retorting that "he's right, and so am I... can anyone see why?"
ReplyDeleteThe implication being that the means are non-mechanical in some sense. Ie. not by any form of direct leverage.
Personally i'm still experimenting with CF - since this may be one obvious 'indirect' way by which a weight might set in motion a chain of events culminating in a greater lift, without actually performing the lift itself... although i still haven't found anything useful yet.
Beneath the principles of CF is of course inertia, and this too is something preoccupying my thoughts, whether rotary or linear..
His self-starting one-way wheels, having no stator, must have been under overbalancing torque, and so somehow this must be sufficient for exploiting whatever subsequent principle he was applying...
The Bessler quote: "one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound...to date, no mechanical arrangement has been found fit to the task" has a simple interpretation. It refers to one of his wheels, after building up sufficient energy, being able to rapidly lift up a box of bricks and then to keep repeating that action after the wheel has time to again replenish its energy. In this case each pound of weight inside of the wheel is responsible for the lifting of several pounds of weight outside of the wheel. The part about "to date, no mechanical arrangement has been found fit to the task" is just another way of saying that only the imbalanced pm wheels invented by Bessler were capable of performing such a task. I don't think there's really anything that mysterious about these quotes.
Delete@Vibrator, I'm with you 100%. I believe CF is an important component of the solution.
Delete@Ken, I never looked at the quotes this way. I always thought he was referring to the movement of weights within the wheel to create overbalance. Your interpretation is certainly as plausible as any other and makes very good sense. I plan on doing some re-reading with you interpretation in mind. Thanks for sharing this most excellent bit of information.
@Ken - Bessler is quoting Wagner as stating the "to date.." claim. Then he (B.) agrees with Wagner - no mechanical arrangement has been found fit to the task of one pound causing the raising more than one pound. Yet he is nonetheless insisting that such a feat is both possible, and also the breakthrough principle powering his wheels. The only logical resolution of this poser (of both Wagner and Bessler being correct) is that the working arrangement is somehow 'non-mechanical'. I interpret this to mean 'no direct means of physical coercion' - the smaller weight isn't forcing the larger weight up using its weight alone, and perhaps isn't even in physical comunion with it. Furthermore, "more than one pound" might refer to multiple masses, and not a single larger mass.
DeleteA one pound flywheel raising more than one pound would also be a consistent interpretation, but then where would it get the rotational kinetic energy from? Bessler is trying to hint at the energy source (that's the explicit context of the above statement - "the kind of excess impetus people should look for in my wheels") - and he frames it this way on two separate occasions in AP. A mere flywheel with no hint of the means to spin it up (a 'prime mover') would be trivial to the point he's alluding to.
Where did one of Bessler's wheels get the rotational kinetic energy it needed so that, when acting as a flywheel, it could raise up weights external to itself? That's quite obvious to me. All genuine imbalanced pm wheels obtain that energy at the expense of the mass of their internal weights and other moving parts which they slowly lose during operation. Bessler referred to the accumulation of this rotational kinetic energy while a wheel was running freely as "excess impetus". This accumulation of rotational kinetic energy is the natural consequence of having a wheel design whose internal mechanics manage to keep the center of mass of its weights and levers always on its descending side as it rotates. The real question is (and always has been) just what mechanics will achieve this. I'm convinced that it can be done using nothing more than weights, levers, ropes, and springs. Hopefully, I soon have his design with enough detail for others to attempt building it.
DeleteWhile i wish you every luck with it of course, i haven't been able to get past the theoretical impasse of keeping an overbalancing mass on the descending side, without itself descending.
ReplyDeleteThis was NOT because i couldn't come up with a mechanism to prevent the weight falling, despite the wheel's rotation; i did this, and can forward you the wm2d files (perhaps you'd like to take a look and consider the implications?). What i found was that unless the weight is able to descend, no work can be performed. The wheel thus stays locked motionless - the net system remains overbalanced, but unable to revolve without lowering the weight.
Also, the problem of raising the weights again after their descent was one of Wagner's criticisms, to which Bessler responded (in AP) that this was, nevertheless, what was happening inside his wheel...
"What i found was that unless the weight is able to descend, no work can be performed." Not true! Consider a hamster in one of those exercise wheels they sometimes build into their cages. The hamster gets inside of the wheel and begins running up one of its inner curving surfaces. As he does this the wheel starts to turn and will continually accelerate as long as he runs fast enough to keep from being moved under the wheel's axle. To do this the hamster must keep running and constantly expending some of the chemical potential energy stored in his body. This is analogous to how a genuine imbalanced pm wheel such as those constructed by Bessler operated. In such a wheel the offset center of mass of the wheel's internal weights and levers must be constantly raised at a rate that exactly matches the rate at which the rotating drum of the wheel tries to move it to a position below the axle. Thus, the center of mass is constantly being raised relative to the rotating drum even though its location remains, more or less, fixed in space. It takes a constant expenditure of energy to keep raising that center of mass and that energy, as I've contended for many years now, can only come from on source. That source is located inside of the wheel and is actually provided by the mass of the weights and levers. As the wheel runs and performs external work, its weights and levers will experience a constant drain of the latent energy they contain and will also experience a decrease in mass as this happens. Bessler would not have been aware of this loss of mass in his wheel's lead weights and wooden levers because it occurs at a very, very small rate. One of his wheels would probably have needed to run continuously for millions of years for any of its weights to have lost as much as a single ounce of its mass!
DeleteSome glitch made my reply above post twice and I can't delete the second one! John, maybe you'll have to tidy this up.
DeleteI love hamsters, me. Syrians especially, make great pets. So i get the mental image, but not the analogy; if the weight cannot descend then the only other work it can perform is by rolling, which requires an input of energy from elsewhere.
DeleteThe system i came up with performs precisely the function you describe, and also matches some key Bessler clues - the weights come in pairs, and as one takes up an outer position, the other takes an inner position closer to the axle, swapping places with each rotation. They thus overbalance the wheel, and its resulting rotation then drives a co-axial gear system which raises the weights. The gear ratio is infinitely adjustable - and at a 1:1 lift:fall ratio nothing happens. If the ratio is greater than 1 the wheel runs counter-clockwise, lowering the weights, and if it's less than 1 it runs clockwise, again lowering the weights. So it only rotates if that allows the weights to descend. If not, it remains stationary.
The lift:fall ratio is also the power ratio - at low power the weights only descend a tiny amount per cycle, hence the wheel runs for an impressively long time and reaches dizzying speeds... but cannot tolerate any useful applied load. At higher ratios it runs for less time and reaches lower top speeds but can tolerate a higher applied load. Either way though, the maximum output work is always less than the GMH of the internal weight drops.
Later i'll post a link to a sim demonstrating this, gotta go work now...
Also, how does mass convert to energy if not by nuclear decay? And whatever process you envisage, how is that not the manifestation of the energy, rather than the overbalancing torque you anticipate? Ie. in nuclear decay, the form of the transformed mass energy is the KE of the ejected nuclei - not GPE, for instance. It seems like you're hedging your bets a little here; if you were only expecting one miracle i'd bite my tongue.. but two? And both of them seem self-contradictory..
http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html
I know that what I have described above seems a bit paradoxical, but that wheel inside of the hamster cage will accelerate and can do external work even though the running hamster inside of it remains, more or less, fixed in position in space and constantly climbing up the curving inside surface of the wheel. He constantly uses his little legs to lift himself up a bit at the same rate that the wheel's inner surface drops away from him. Thus, he's constantly pushing himself upward and away from the falling wheel's inner wall. His body weight is therefore able to provide a constant torque to the wheel. Much the same happens inside of Bessler's wheels even though there is nothing climbing up the inner surface of a drum's outer periphery. Physical contact with the drum's outer surfaces is not actually necessary to make the drum accelerate. All that's necessary is that the invisible center of mass of wheel's weights and levers stays floating in space on one side of the axle which is the descending side. My calculations indicate that the center of mass of the weights in the Kassel wheel was actually located only about one inch away from the center of the wheel's eight inch diameter axle. That means it was located inside of the axle!
DeleteYou do not need nuclear transformations for the atoms of an object to lose mass. This happens any time that the object loses energy. For example, when a pot of boiling water cools down to room temperature, every subatomic particle contained in the atoms of its water molecules will experience a tiny drop in mass which amounts to only a very small fraction of a picogram for all of the subatomic particles present. Ordinarily, in chemistry we do not even consider these mass changes. But, when an object continues to lose large amounts of energy over an extended period of time (as would a genuine constantly running imbalanced pm wheel), the drop in mass begins to become measurable.
LOL don't take any notice of me, there's too few people working on this as it is, and if you can get it to work that's all that matters..
ReplyDeleteI stuck the sim i mentioned up on TinyUpload here:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=77340836728070474439
If you select Window / Properties / Constraint[53] - Gear, you'll see it has a ratio of 0.334. This is the smallest ratio for clockwise operation - it'll start slowly and pick up speed. Reduce the ratio to 0.333 and that's the smallest ratio for counter-clockwise operation. So 0.4, say, will make it go CW fast, and 0.3 will make it go CCW fast.
I tried every variation on this principle i could think of, but regardless, it only rotates if the weights can get lower.. so i concluded it was thus a zero sum game.. Hopefully your approach is different enough to finally give the hamster a run for its money...
M.V., respondent Behrendt is hopelessly stuck on his old threadbare path going to Nowhere Land, it being left-over from his BWF days (now thankfully and mercifully done) and, as I suppose, will be on it still when he expires . . . finally!
Delete(Now . . . this will be THE DAY for serious celebrations and merriment indeed, mercury-caused or otherwise natural, or not - whatever being necessary so as to effect the vitally-needed trick leading to the essential surcease, etc.)
I would suggest (since you recommended this concerning yourself with which I would and could not agree, respectfully) the HE himself be taken less notice-of, this for maintenance of sheer sanity-of-mind of all. (Think of all the merry-go-round, same-old-same-old time as is now presently wasted, that by it would be SAVED!)
Nowhere Land is Mechanistic Land which is his unnatural habitation but, of which he cannot possibly be even aware for the severity of the pathology involved, it being so very very reality-disconnected. And, this being why nothing of his has worked nor will it ever.
"Obvious truths need not be proved" - Maxim of Law, original in Latin
(With giddiest of giddy anticipation I await the subpoena from his cheap attorney. Bring it on! When finally up on the stand, in pro per, as a matter of the public record itself, we shall SEE the wriggling and what makes him tick-truly and, as well, get a long good look at his appearance. At present, we've no idea as to what it might be like actually but, CAN well-imagine. Oh yes!!!! As for most all of our own living visages, ours can be viewed over at "Rogues Gallery" at BWF, as authored by our own most modest but capable moderating author, J.C. The "B" man's is NOT there to be seen. "We" do wonder 'why this lack?')
All the very best to you, M.V.
James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann". . .
Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann
LOL he can't grasp that mass is quantised, or the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. Despite my frequent protestations he still fervently believes potential energy increases the mass of a system (to be fair, a common misapprehension), but despite all this we must remember that fortune favours the bold; who knows in what dark corner serendipity will strike..?
ReplyDeleteOne of my fave films is Peter Sellers' final movie, Being There - especially the closing scene at Rand's funeral, where with zen-like aloofness he walks out across the lake, stops halfway to dip his umbrella in, testing the depth, before calmly continuing his stroll, perhaps towards nowhere, or, perhaps, a future presidency.... But its real poignancy, and central message of the film, is that success borne only of ignorance that one is, by all rights, supposed to fail, is nonetheless a legitimate 'thing'. You wouldn't WANT to try and tell Chauncey Gardiner that he's supposed to sink, much less expect him to concede...
and there's a Chance in all of us..
No, James, I will not continue my search for the secret of Bessler's wheels until I "expire". I've decided that this year will be the final one of my pm wheel research. If I do not find his secret mechanism this year, then it's time for me to bow out gracefully as I pass the torch on to the next generation of pm hopefuls. However, I have absolutely not doubts about the reality of what I have found to date concerning his wheels' inner mechanics. They are simple overbalanced wheels using lever carried weights that are coordinated with ropes and which are critically dependent upon spring tension for the shifting they do that keeps their center of mass on a wheel's descending side as it rotates. I think I'm closer to "the" solution than ever before and each of the almost 1100 failures I've experienced so far has gotten me a little closer. I'm confident that this will be the year I finally crack that nut Bessler left us. But, as I said, if not, then it's time for me to "retire".
ReplyDelete@Vibrator. Mass is "quantized"? That's news to me. And, yes, I do know the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass and the changes in mass I discussed above involve the rest mass of objects. Also, it is an established principle of modern physics that increasing the energy of a system, even if it's the system's potential energy, always increases its rest mass.
If so, this would be good news, indeed! (Giddy with naughty, anticipatory glee, I am.)
DeleteWhen this moment of relief manifests finally, we two must share a can of certified non-mercurized tuna in celebration of final hatchet burying. (But, by that doubtless very long time into some future, it will BE GLOWING, if not already. Never mind the mercury.)
For all the losing, apparently, one cannot win.
The soothing touch of The Grim Reaper is the key to it, I think.
J.
The mass mediator is the Higgs boson; for the weights to get lighter either the degree of interaction with the Higgs field would need to change (it can't - particles either have mass or they don't, but their rest mass is constant), or the amount of matter would need to change (such as by nuclear decay converting mass to energy).
ReplyDeleteAlthough it's a common misconception that potential energy has mass, that's impossible and irrational - consider a system comprising a table, floor, a hole in the floor and a something to drop from the table... say, a spoon. If we pick the spoon up from the floor and place it on the table, the hypothesis would predict that the system's net mass has increased. If we then move the spoon's position on the table so that it now sits directly over the hole, the hypothesis states that the system's net mass has increased further (since the spoon will fall further if knocked off the table). But if mass and energy are equivalent, then where has this extra mass come from? All we've done is slide the spoon across the table. If we slide it back to the other side, so that it's no longer going to fall into the hole if it falls from the table, then where did the extra mass (associated with the potential to fall into the hole) disappear to?
Clearly, increasing the potential drop distance of a falling mass increases the system's potential energy, yet to presume this likewise increases its net mass is not logically tenable - requiring us to assume that an empty hole has rest mass, furthermore depending on its position relative to some random object that may or may not fall into it...
Mass only increases as a function of kinetic energy.
But i'm not knocking you - poking fun makes me feel like a right arsehole, so don't take it to heart. We can count the number of people actually ploughing ahead with experiments here on our fingers, and i'm currently not one of them - every attempt i make stalls within half an hour.. so ignore me and keep on keeping on. Petty criticisms about theories of operation and wotnot are just a distraction... and without a runner, merely counting angels on pinheads.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMoving the spoon from the floor to the table top increase both the gravitational potential energy of the spoon and its mass. It does not matter where on the table the spoon rests even if it is over the hole. As the spoon then drops from the table onto the floor, it experiences no change in either energy or mass because what it looses in gravitational potential energy it immediately gains back in kinetic energy (actually it will loose a small amount of kinetic energy and mass as it drops and pushes the intervening air aside which then experiences a small gain in energy and mass). When the spoon hits the floor, it will lose the kinetic energy and the mass associated with it as these are transferred to the floor to produce both sound and a slight increase in the temperature of the floor at the impact point. If the spoon falls into the hole the same thing will happen until it hits the bottom of the hole at which point the spoon will loose all of the kinetic energy it gained during the drop and the mass associated with that kinetic energy. The spoon will have less mass on the floor than it did on the table and less mass at the bottom of the hole than it had on the floor. In the case of an imbalanced pm wheel, the weights continue to loose their rest mass as the wheel runs and transfers that mass and the energy associated with it to any device attached to the wheel's axle.
DeleteLOL it's a tricky one isn't it - so in reductio ad absurdum, the higher above the floor the spoon gets, the greater its increase in mass, hence any spoons on planet Tharg (on the other side ofthe universe) is infinitely heavy? Where's the cut-off point at which mass no longer increases with height?
DeleteOr to bring the issue back closer to home, what about a spoon placed in a high geostationary orbit - assuming the orbit never degrades, the spoon has zero PE relative to Earth. Yet on its way up to orbit, its PE is increasing, right up until it hits stable orbital velocity. If mass is conserved, where does the mass of that PE end up?
Back to the table / floor / hole system, moving the spoon across the table to lie directly over the hole has increased the system's PE. Alternatively, suppose we could move the hole instead, placing it underneath the spoon on the table. This increases the system's PE in the same way, so according to your hypothesis, if we could accurately measure the mass of the spoon, it'll fluctuate slightly as we move the hole around the floor under the table.
It could be any form of PE - separate two magnets in attraction and according to you their mass continues increasing even as the force between them becomes infinitesimally small. Stretch a spring until it fails - where'd the gained mass go? In the extreme, the net mass of the universe must be decreasing as it cools and expands - and must've been practically infinitely higher at the moment of the Big Bang..!
All relativity claims is that mass has an associated energy value. A given amount of energy has an equivalent value of mass. The (admittedly popular) misapprehension that this implies PE has mass is unwarranted and paradoxical. A banana has an equivalent cash value, but only if it's converted. Stuff one into a parking meter and you'll still get a ticket.
Relativistic mass increases as a function of KE - heat a gas and its mass increases in relation to the walls of its container. Likewise, suppose we're playing zero-G tennis - if you hit the ball towards me then its relativistic mass increases relative to both of us. But if instead of hitting it back at you, i run away from it, accelerating say using a thruster until i'm at the same velocity as it, then it becomes stationary relative to me, and thus has zero relativistic mass from my point of view, while still posessing it relative to you.
If, instead, i caught the ball and decided NOT to throw it back to you, ever, then my end of the system's PE, relative to you, has disapeared.. so what happened to my supposed increase in mass? Or what if, later on, i change my mind and decide i'll actually chuck it back at you after all - does the net mass of me plus the ball instantaneously increase again as soon as i make that decision?
Similarly, if i decide i'm gonna kick the next pebble i see, has my or the currently-unknown pebble's mass (or both) increased? When exactly does the increase manifest - when i make the resolution, or when i pull my leg back to initiate the kick?
Potential energy is a notional entity. It's not a 'real' objective thing, being entirely subjective..
Relativistic mass as a function of PE just doesn't pan out. It IS a common misconception, often from people who should know better, but beyond such mistaken anecdotes it has no basis in physics.
But again, don't worry too much about where Bessler's gain actually comes from. As long as the thing worked, and can be made to work again, that's all that matters. Until then it's all angels on pinheads...
Actually, moving the spoon off into space to farther and farther distances from Earth will not cause its mass to become infinite because there is a limit to how much of an increase in gravitational potential energy and mass that the spoon can be given due to the exponential drop off in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field as one gets farther from the Earth.
ReplyDeleteMoving the spoon on the table until its over the hole in the floor does not suddenly increase its gravitational potential energy and mass. These are determined strictly by the distance of the spoon from the center of the Earth. Once the spoon drops off of the table, however, it can then lose more of its gravitational potential energy and mass if it happens to fall through the hole in the floor rather than coming to rest on the floor. The loss will stop when it hits the bottom of the hole.
If the universe is infinite, then the total amount of mass and energy in it is also infinite. However, at the time of a Big Bang there is a very high concentration of mass and energy in a relatively small volume of space. After the Big Bang the concentration continuously drops as the mass begins to slow down and cool off. The Second Law of Thermodynamics comes into play almost immediately after the Big Bang.
For the purposes of thought experiment we'd assume a simplified ideal universe containing only our gravitating or magnetically-attracting masses, and the laws of physics; the forces thus drop off following the inverse-square of distance, becoming infinitesimal at infinite range - the drop time will likewise diverge to infinity but then so does the PE... so where do we draw the line and say "no more PE"? And more pertinently, where does the increased mass go beyond that limit? Where is that mass manifested - just in the spoon, or in the Earth too, or in both - the net system? Does this increased mass also gravitate? If so then the attractive force increases to some extent offsetting the inverse-square drop-off. Gets paradoxical pretty quick eh..?
DeleteAnd GPE is GMH (gravity times mass times height (the drop height or 'displacement' - not the distance to the center of the Earth)), so a hole does the same job as a lift. Either way, if it can fall further then it has more PE. If we lift it from the floor to the table, but then drop it from the table into the hole, then our input GPE is less than the output GPE. So is it more massive when it drops? Does that increased mass manifest the moment it becomes aligned to the hole?
The universe is finite - granted there's a red-shift horizon but what we CAN see up to that limit is in perfect agreement with theory (1st gen hydrogen / helium stars), and ditto the CMBR. But if it WAS infinite then by your rationale its PE and thus mass would also be infinite, hence precluding any expansion against its own infinite gravity (notwithstanding an even greater magnitude infinity of input energy). Generally, any theory invoking infinities is considered to be flawed... and right now we're piling 'em on.
Presumably you agree that relativistic mass increases as a function of KE.. so extrapolate backwards from there and consider the differences to PE. Again, PE is a notional quantity - it can effectively be created and destroyed; such as by arbitrarily varying the available displacement travel at will. If PE = mass were true, then we could vary the mass of systems purely by making decisions.
You're trying to nail down a misgiven concept here and it ain't gonna stick - you're having to dodge exceptions to ring fence the desired conclusions. How do weights lose mass in a working Bessler wheel without nuclear decay? Without the atoms dissociating into a quark-gluon plasma, you've got the same number of atoms with the same protons, neutrons and electrons having the same elementary charges, masses and spin momenta. To reduce mass you have to eject matter. Spin it round the other way - does the mass of the weights increase when a Bessler wheel is made to run backwards? Does the mass of its weights increase the moment you decide to place them in the wheel? Instead of looking for confirmation bias, look for the implications of a theory, and follow them through without favour. A useful theory makes accurate predictions, while a less useful one invokes inconsistencies. The Popperian method - we have to try to make falsifiable theories, and then try to falsify them... prefferably by ourselves - ie. without inviting sanctimonious lectures from petty pedants like me..
How do weights lose mass in a working Bessler wheel without nuclear decay? You posted so many questions that I had to be selective and focus on this one. The weights in Bessler's wheels lost mass without having the nuclei of their lead atoms undergo any sort of nuclear decay. The same thing happened to the spoon that fell off of the table. It is not necessary for nuclear reactions to occur for the rest mass of the subatomic particles of an atom to lose some of their rest mass. Nuclear reactions produce relatively large changes in the rest masses of the product nuclei and release enormous amounts of energy. What happened in Bessler's wheels was far more subtle with all of the weights and levers losing only a small percentage of a picogram of mass with each wheel rotation.
ReplyDeleteBut a weights rest mass is by definition invariant! It's the collective rest mass of all of its constituent massive particles!
ReplyDeleteElectron mass = 9.10938291 × 10^-31 kg
Proton mass = 1.67262178 × 10^-27 kg
Neutron mass = 1.6749286 * 10^-27 kg
These are fundamental constants. Some folks believe that if their value COULD be altered, the entire universe would be destroyed. What you're suggesting is tantamount to tapping the charge of an electron, or the spin of a photon.
I was hoping to be able to crack this mystery at home, using basic tools. But to convert mass to energy our only options are fusion and fission, either of which are likely to invalidate the warranty on my Meccano set.
Think about this carefully - WHY should the weights convert their mass to energy, simply by falling, if, at the same time, they're also being re-lifted to the same height they fall from? Whether the weights bob up and down or go round and round in cycles, they're travelling the same distance up vs down, hence why aren't they converting energy to mass when ascending? Aren't we being a bit selective here?
If i'm inundating you with questions, any one of them could shine a light on the issue if you'd follow them through... although at this point i'm starting to think there probably isn't gonna be an "aha!" moment and i should probably just pipe down and admit defeat here..
Well, you say that the rest mass of an object's subatomic particles is "invariant" and I'm sure you read that somewhere or was told it by a teacher somewhere. If one accepts that as true, then he will have a real problem trying to explain where the mechanical energy Bessler's wheels produced came from. He will be forced to conclude that their outputted energy was created out of nothing! To me that is far less likely than it was extracted from the rest mass of the subatomic particles composing the lead atoms in this wheels' weights. The question I wrestle with is what would be the fate of the weights left in a wheel that was allowed to continuously run and perform outside work. Would those weights simply keep losing mass until they were massless or would some process kick in that would "pull" mass out of their environment to replenish their masses? These questions will not be definitively answered until and unless we are able to duplicate one of his wheels.
ReplyDeleteEssentially you're asking "what pulls masses down?".. Relativity describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime - an effect we can actually see in gravitationally lensed telescope images.
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheels rotated because one side of the wheel was heavier, so the work was actually done by gravity.
When we lift a weight, we're performing work upon the system against gravity. When it subsequently falls again, gravity is performing work upon the system. In a gravity wheel, less input work is performed than output work. Since the weights must loop equal distance up as down, and gravity is invariant, the output work remains constant and the input work is tempered by a reduced force when lifting (as if counterbalanced).
If weights had to sacrifice their own mass to fall (instead of gravity doing the work), then information could be destroyed - suppose a tiny weight (a single neutron, say) fell a sufficient distance - according to your hypothesis, after falling a sufficient height, it will have used up all its mass. So what happens then? Does it just disappear? Does its mass invert and become negative?
Forces such as gravity are actually exchanges of energy between masses / charges, and the vacuum fluctiations that mediate them - all fundamental forces have an associated carrier particle. These energy exchanges are responsible for manifesting the 'action at a distance' between masses and charges.
When we lift a mass against gravity, we're really performing work against these vacuum interactions - we've added some of our chemical energy into the vacuum potential. The actual displacement of the mass is incidental from this perspective. When a mass falls, the vacuum has performed work upon the system and so its potential is decreased proportionately. This same dynamic still applies when the output work exceeds the input work - hence gravity mills are coupled directly to the vacuum energy, or "zero point energy".
ZPE isn't some exotic sci-fi invention - all standard energy interactions are ZPE interactions. The ZPE is holding every atom of our bodies together, and preventing us sinking through the floor. The ONLY difference between classical symmetric interactions and non-classical asymmetric ones is that the latter are no longer equitable exchages - the vacuum can end up in credit or deficit, depending on the direction of the asymmetry (loss or gain).
Is the vacuum energy replenished from some other source, or finite (ie. is it active or passive)? We don't know. Hopefully the former, though even then we can only guess how quickly, and from what direction or dimension it might be replenished. If it's immediate and local then we're probably in the clear and it's safe to use it. If non-local or non-immediate (or both) then we might be taking unknowable risks - including precipitating a Big Crunch.
If we DO kickstart the Rapture then there's probably nothing we can do to arrest it, although mass orgies might be worth a shot (there'd be nothing to lose either way), likewise human sacrifice of noisy neighbors, internet trolls and politicians.
Best case scenario is that it's not the net energy of the universe that's constant, but rather its throughput from some more fundamental substrate, and that this value is instantaneously self-regulating, with no detrimental side effects. That's counting a lotta chickens tho..
Google "gauge bosons" and "zero point energy" - the former are quantum vacuum fluctuations of the latter. All standard classical interactions are thus vacuum interactions. The ONLY difference in an asymmetrical interaction is that it's non-equitable, sourcing or sinking thermodynamic energy from or to the vacuum potential
So sayeth the Standard Model....
"...suppose a tiny weight (a single neutron, say) fell a sufficient distance - according to your hypothesis, after falling a sufficient height, it will have used up all its mass. So what happens then? Does it just disappear? Does its mass invert and become negative?" Even if a neutron fell to the center of the Earth, it would still not lose all of its mass. In order to lose all of their masses, the subatomic particles in the atoms of the weights of a pm wheel would have to have been in a working wheel for, according to some calculations I've made, billions of years! Once such a particle did lose all of its mass, it would be massless and the wheel would stop running. It would not be possible for the mass of the particle to become negative because that would then imply that energy was coming from nowhere which is, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, impossible.
ReplyDeleteI said "sufficient height" - not restricting the thought experiment to Earth's limits.
ReplyDeleteSay the neutron fell from 10 lightyears towards a supermassive black hole. If it was losing mass all the way - and faster, the closer it got and the stronger the G-field became, then its loss of all mass is an inevitability according to your hypothesis.
Still, this is only to illustrate the problem. The real challenge is in explaining how the particle can lose any mass at all, while still remaining a neutron.
There's so many examples i could give where the theory leads to nonsense conclusions. For instance, if gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, and can be simulated by G-Forces, we could spin an atom up in a centrifuge, let it fall outwards, stop the centrifuge and retract it, then repeat - each pass would reduce the atom's mass by a little more.
Alternatively, consider what happens to an atom if we reduce the mass of its protons and electrons while keeping their charge constant... it'll inflate, won't it? So would our prospective weights swell up as they shed mass?
What if we then ionise that reduced-mass material, then mix it with unaffected matter and let it recondense - the whole island of stability would be shifted! Isotopes that were normally stable would become radioactive, and vice versa. The binding energies would be all over the place, depending on whether we constructed our atoms from reduced-mass electrons or protons.
The number of particles in a mole would be askew - Avogadro's constant would no longer hold.
Electron mass is a function of the Rydberg constant, the fine structure constant (alpha) and the Planck constant. If its mass can change, then so must it component constants. If the Planck constant and alpha can change, then all bets are off, for everything, everywhere, and all of Western science would be back to the drawing board, from chemistry and biology to particle physics to astronomy. All of it would be built on unsound foundations.
The energy of photons, the EM interaction, the photoelectric effect, proton gradients and ATP metabolism, the age, size, past and future of the universe, just about everything we thought we knew would be wrong.
Give up yet? Relativistic mass increases as s function of KE. Rest mass is constant and invariant. All fundamental forces are mediated by gauge bosons, which are quantum vacuum fluctuations. Asymmetric force interactions thus sink or source energy to or from the vacuum potential.
I think if a neutron fell into a black hole it would be accelerated toward light velocity,but its rest mass would remain constant as its velocity and kinetic energy increased. However, eventually it would impact with the other mass inside of the hole which is located at its central "singularity". At that instant at least half of its original rest mass would be converted into gamma radiation photons that would bounce around inside of the black hole between its central singularity and the hole's "event horizon". In this extreme example, the neutron might still exist, but would be distorted by the powerful gravity field it was experiencing. These are all interesting situations to ponder, but I keep my focus on Bessler's wheels and what would be happening to their weights as a wheel continuously outputted energy to perform work in its environment. That energy has to come from somewhere. It does not just miraculously come out of nothing as some would have us believe. Someday, after we begin to routinely duplicate his invention and experiment with it, we will have more detailed answers to the mystery of how they really work. I don't think that research will show that we need to drastically alter our presently accepted laws of physics. I will continue to maintain that the rest mass of a subatomic particle is variable and that this is the only way an imbalanced pm wheel could work.
ReplyDeleteI knew you'd get caught up in blck hole mechanics, i just knew it... alright then, suppose it's a neutron star - whatever, it's the force * distance that matters; according to you if enough such gravitational work is done, the falling neutron will disappear.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, you're right, better to focus on generating the energy than wondering where it comes from...
Best wishes..
Actually, what I'm saying is that, even if massless, a subatomic particle will not just disappear. It will still be present, but, obviously, will not possess any gravitational or inertial properties. Right now our science does not deal with massless subatomic particles or the atoms that can be made from them or the objects that could be made from such massless atoms. But, I suspect that this situation will change in the future. What's disturbing about the concept is that, in a massless atom, the electrons would actually be orbiting their nucleus at infinite velocity! Yet, this would not affect the various physical properties of the atom. The concept of massless matter will be paradigm shifter for sure.
ReplyDeleteWe HAVE massless particles - photons, neutrinos (if not all flavours), and gluons.
ReplyDeleteDid you read up on the gauge bosons and their role as force mediators like i suggested?
Basically forces & fields that propagate at lightspeed must by definition be massless.
Again, the rest mass of elementary particles is an irreducible function of various constants - ie. invariant values. The Rydberg constant can't change, the Planck constant can't change, and neither can the EM constant. That's why they're called 'constants'. To say such a revision would be a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.. a 'kilogram' of massless gold would be infinitely large, except it wouldn't be a kilogram or even a picogram, and it wouldn't be gold but a quark gluon plasma, except even quarks have rest mass so you'd just have gluons, which are gauge bosons (ie. vacuum fluctuations) hence that's all our gold would be - latent vacuum potential.
So if you're tacitly accepting that vacuum potential is a foregone conclusion then you must also accept that real particles only acquire mass via the Higgs interaction and that rest mass is effectively quantised by alpha and the Planck constant.. in short if it ain't got mass then it ain't an atom.
LOL if we had a giant Bessler wheel we could use spaceships for weights, run it until they were massless then propel them to lightspeed in an instant without having to expend any fuel... although stopping them when they reached their destination could be problematic..
The massless subatomic particles I referred to above were the electrons, neutrons, and protons that made up atoms. Yes, photons are considered to be massless, but that view changes when you realize that, since they contain energy, they do have a mass equivalent which comes into calculations when one calculates the light "pressure" they can exert on a reflecting surface. This principle was explored as a way to propel spacecraft around our solar system using giant plastic "sails" attached to the spacecraft.
ReplyDeleteActually, if one could completely negate the mass of an object, then it should be possible to accelerate it to infinite velocity in a perfect vacuum using the smallest of finite forces. Fortunately, our universe is not a perfect vacuum and such an object would always reach a finite terminal velocity for a given force applied to it although that velocity could be many times greater than that of light. Stopping the object, which could be a spacecraft, at its destination is not a problem. Simply stop applying force to it and it will immediately come to a stop due to the "drag" it experiences from the very tenuous supply of hydrogen gas in space (about one particle per cubic centimeter!).