No matter how famous and celebrated some scientists may be, they are all prone to promoting scientific fallacies. One example everyone is familiar with is Lord Kelvin’s statement in 1895, that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later by the Wright brothers’ flight. But Kelvin wasn’t alone, the number of scientists and engineers who shared his conviction is too large to count.
Almost every top scientist you can mention made firm comments at some point in their otherwise illustrious careers, about some areas of scientific research which later proved to be wrong. I include Charles Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan to mention just a few.
“In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.
Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.
No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.
But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."
Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.”
So given the doubts about Helmholtz’s axiom and Bessler’s validated claim to have invented such a machine, how can we ignore the potential benefit of a machine which costs nothing in energy to run?
There are many fields occupied by so-called pseudo-scientists and that is one of the more respectable names I’ve been called. But how much more pseudo-scientific can you get than Helmholtz’s ridiculous axion, especially when Johann Bessler had proved him wrong over 130 years earlier? It doesn’t matter that he made some significant discoveries in unconnected fields of science, so did the celebrated people I mentioned above, but just because someone excels in a particular field doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they say is correct.
There are surprisingly few proven facts in science. Instead, scientists often talk about how much evidence there is for their theories. The more evidence, the stronger the theory and the more accepted it becomes.
Scientists are usually very careful to accumulate lots of evidence and test their theories thoroughly. But the history of science has some key, if rare, examples of evidence misleading enough to bring a whole scientific community to believe something later considered to be radically false.
Johann Bessler’s wheel has been ignored or dismissed by the vast, heavyweight scholarship of countless teachers and scientists who have defiantly promoted this paradigm, invented by Helmholtz as if it came directly from God. It didn’t, it’s misleading and it’s wrong!
Most of the above quotation comes courtesy of the Besslerwheel forum with huge thanks to its moderator.
JC
"But how much more pseudo-scientific can you get than Helmholtz’s ridiculous axion, especially when Johann Bessler had proved him wrong over 130 years earlier?"
ReplyDeleteDid Bessler really prove Helmholtz wrong? It seems that you and others are only ASSUMING that Bessler's wheels could run forever while constantly generating energy to power attached machines. The longest test done with his largest wheel only lasted about two months. Two months is NOT eternity. If Bessler's wheels could not run for eternity, then they were NOT "perpetual" motion and Helmholtz was right!
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics just says that, in a CLOSED system where energy cannot enter from the outside or leave, the amount of energy MUST remain constant. If Bessler's wheels were constantly releasing energy from inside of themselves to the outside to run machines, then they were either somehow taking energy in from some unseen outside source to do that or they already had that energy inside of them. They could not somehow be making energy out of nothing and violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by doing so. I don't see any way around this REALITY despite what pm chasers want to believe.
jason
The statements are equivalent, that’s why you can say them in either order; not “a profound reversal of reasoning”. Laws aren’t what you’re thinking they are. Until an actual PM machine is demonstrated, they remain theoretical, not impossible. That’s what it means.
ReplyDeleteBessler’s wheels don’t fulfill the requirement, indisputable evidence, they were allegedly PM. Unfortunately he didn’t release enough details to rediscover them and fulfill the requirements ; circumstancial evidence isn’t enough.
To Jason and Jeff. Bessler’s wheels were not perpetual motion machines according to the definition because they weren’t isolated systems. The two month run was to demonstrate that the wheels weren’t wound up, but could run continuously with no other energy input other than from falling weights. Gravity did not supply the energy but it is a force and therefore enabled the wheels to turn because it acted upon the weights. Bessler himself said that he did not like the term perpetual motion but preferred continuous motion. So the motion of the weights was caused by an external force, gravity.
DeleteThe laws are descriptions of observed phenomenon and I agree they don’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it, but my main point was Helmholtz’s assumption that perpetual motion machines had never been made successfully therefore they must be impossible. The definition of perpetual motion has changed since Bessler’s day and at that time it simply meant a perpetual motion with no external energy source - impossible then as now.
JC
nothing can be isolated, but forces such as gravity aren't part of the definition for open, closed or isolated systems. The parts are energy, and matter, and a wheel would not exchange 'gravitational energy' with its surroundings. You can try to change the definition of an open system, but it won't change what happens. You'd be better off trying to find a solution for his wheels that obeys the laws rather than trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
DeleteGravity might have enabled them to start, but that would be all. So as you say if gravity didn't supply their energy, then something else must have, and, it wasn't an inexhaustible supply, despite the fact they had an two month run (unwitnessed, unfortunately).
I know I have banged on about it for years .. but here goes again ..
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheels are an anomaly in Physics and according to the Laws of Conservation and Thermodynamics should not be possible.
An important pillar for that institutional position is the work by Emmy Noether, which simply states .. "Wherever a symmetry of nature exists, there is a conservation law attached to it, and vice versa."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
Under History .. "The complete dynamic theory of simple machines was worked out by Italian scientist Galileo Galilei in 1600 in Le Meccaniche (On Mechanics), in which he showed the underlying mathematical similarity of the machines as force amplifiers. He was the first to explain that simple machines do not create energy, only transform it."
Clearly Galileo had not heard of B's. wheels, as they came after him. But B. had heard of him.
Work-Energy Theorm .. or Work Energy Equivalence Principle ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
"The work-energy theorem states that the net work done by the forces on an object equals the change in its kinetic energy."
For a B. wheel to to do work and be self-moving (a Runner) then we can take two views, given the above introduction ..
1. In a Runner ALL forces net out to a change in Kinetic Energy, therefore we do not have an account of ALL mechanical forces in our own non-runner models. ** Ipso Facto because B's. wheels produced Rotational KE and Angular Momentum. Therefore he did have account of an additional force that netted to a change in KE.
2. That Noether's Theorm (not a Law) and the Conservation and Thermodynamic Laws are incomplete, for one special mechanical situation, embodied in B's. self-moving "Runners".
And imo a somewhat obvious candidate is in the reconciling of the Work_Energy Theorem (** not a Law). IOW's Force (N) x displacement (m) does not always equal Energy Joules, for every mechanical situation (such as B's. wheels).
Either way this is a symmetry break (upsetting Noether) at the local level, imo.
I favour the first view ..
-f
Thanks both. Your responses are understood but my problem lies in describing what I think happens in Bessler’s wheel. I have the complete configuration and I could draw pictures and explain how it works and I’m pretty sure yo would both get it and agree with me that it is the solution.
DeleteBut I cannot fit it into either of your explanations. All I can do is tell you that it works by taking advantage of the falling weights due to gravitational action upon them. No other energy input is required. There is obviously a symmetry break and that seems to fit in with your first option fletch, although but beyond that I simply don’t know nor understand the technical details.
I’m reluctant to describe the complete action because I’m certain that despite my confidence that it becomes obvious why it works, without a working model no one will accept the solution.
JC
The wondrous first law; the conservation of energy!! Which means to can't make a turnip out of a fart. What would we ever do without scientists------------------Sam
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% right, Sam. That first law is total nonsense. I ate some turnips last night and turned them into a lot of farts only a few hours later! This morning I woke up and was still turning them into farts!
DeleteAnon 21:49...you and Sam are both wrong. It is the Second Law that says you can't turn farts into turnips. What you are doing is not violating the Second Law and I do it myself except I turn cabbage into farts...REALLY bad ones.
DeleteWhen not working on Bessler's wheel I work on a method to violate the Second Law and turn farts back into cabbages again. That will help fight climate change by taking all of that greenhouse gas methane in the farts that cows release every day and turning it into millions of pounds of food. I will then use that to feed the billions of hungry people on this planet. So far I've only had limited success. I can get some cabbage back but it doesn't smell too appetizing...
The wondrous first law; the conservation of energy!! Which means to can't make a turnip out of a fart. What would we ever do without scientists------------------Sam
DeleteSammerism vs Noetherism
Scientists are old farts so all old farts are scientists.
theories don't become laws. so Noether and work-energy remain theorems.
ReplyDeletetheories simply explain phenomena and laws describe them. they can go hand in hand, neither is favored.
for instance, general relativity explains gravitational phenomena (utilizing indirect observations, inferences, and consensus) and the law of universal gravitation describes them (utilizing direct observations, repeatable experiments, and consensus.
to support the fact that theories don't become laws, as it sometimes happens, newton's law was created before the theory was created.
so Galileo in 1600 theorized simple machines didn't create energy, only transform it (through force amplification). the law to describe those interactions came much later as well.
both laws and theories are tentative, subject to new evidence. all evidence to date supports both in this gravitational case.
if the wheels had an additional force that netted to a change in kinetic energy (which would necessarily have no opposing force), then they would break the symmetry of nature (Newton's laws of motion) and the thermodynamic laws associated with them (spontaneous energy). A really tough nut.
WE BELIEVE ...... please keep moving ahead and guide us Gravittea
ReplyDelete"John Collins 21 March 2022 at 06:41
ReplyDeleteThanks both. Your responses are understood but my problem lies in describing what I think happens in Bessler’s wheel. I have the complete configuration and I could draw pictures and explain how it works and I’m pretty sure you would both get it and agree with me that it is the solution.
But I cannot fit it into either of your explanations.
All I can do is tell you that it works by taking advantage of the falling weights due to gravitational action upon them. No other energy input is required. There is obviously a symmetry break and that seems to fit in with your first option fletch, although beyond that I simply don’t know nor understand the technical details.
I’m reluctant to describe the complete action because I’m certain that despite my confidence that it becomes obvious why it works, without a working model no one will accept the solution."
My thoughts John .. We all have two challenges ahead of us. 1, Empirically solve the mechanical method behind the mystery of B's. runners. 2. Theoretically explain the motive force behind the mystery of B's. runners.
ATM we have a framework of Newtonian Physics, Classical Mechanics, and the overarching Conservation Laws and Laws of Thermodynamics to work within. Noether Symmetry Theory, and Work-Energy Equivalence Theory, enter the fray.
In many ways the empirical solving of the mechanics is an easier proposition than finding a symmetry break in the framework to offer up as explanation for a previously unknown or unrecognised motive force.
However, Karl said (and I believe him) that it was simple to build and easy to understand. Simple to build as in empirically simple to build (the mechanical nuts and bolts, ones that Galileo 'simple machines' would be familiar with). Easy to understand is a different kettle of fish to Karl and his contemporaries than for us today. Because we have the above mentioned, seemingly bullet proof, framework for a runner to fit into. B. and K. were not hamstrung nor constrained by this yet to be fully birthed immovable object handicap. They simply went around it, B. in building his runner, and K. in understanding why it worked the way it did.
However, as I have done in the past, I offer this caveat (perhaps it will help you find your description).. if I was to explain a runners motive force, and I wanted to map it successfully into the existing framework of Laws and Theories above, then I would conclude that Conservation of Momentum was King. Both Linear and Angular. And logically for a runner to produce usable Angular Momentum (to do Work) as a result of a machine rotating in a conservative gravity field, then I would conclude that the Earth had given up some of its Angular Momentum to my simple machine in order for it to be self-moving and do external Work.
I suspect you have a different idea about how yours might draw its energy !
All The Best with your build John .. it is the only way to have conclusive proof that a theory is 100% correct, and repeatable, and predictable etc.
-f
Thanks as usual for your helpful comments fletch. I think, hope, you’ll be pleasantly surprised at what I’m convinced is the solution.
DeleteJC
Unfortunately until JC actually shows us his "complete configuration" along with a working sim he is going to continue to be dismissed as just another delusional case like the rest of them over on bwf. Then again even if he has a working sim most will say whoever made it for him either hoaxed it or it's not working properly. If he shows us a video he personally made of his wheel running then they will just say it's hoaxed or he stopped recording before it would have stopped.
DeleteHe wrote above that "Bessler himself said that he did not like the term perpetual motion but preferred continuous motion." I think B only liked that description because he knew wear and tear would eventually cause all of his wheels to break down and stop running no matter how well he made them. But I don't think he had any doubt that they were genuine pm in principle and could run forever if they did not break down.
I found this on page 209 of DT "And in truth it now seems to me that the time is long overdue, now that I have achieved my goal, once known only to God, that I and the world should see this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity, in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, and for the benefit of the entire world."
Everlasting to me means he thought his wheels actually could run forever if they did not break down and stop.
As others do, I look forward to it John .. it's long overdue to be solved, and I think I say that for just about everyone with some form and skin in the game.
ReplyDeleteIf it's as easy to understand as you think it is then that will be a welcome bonus. And as you say, a pleasant surprise, particularly if it fits B's. and K's. simple premise. I actually would welcome and deserve the face palming moment ahead lol.
Fingers crossed !
John,I tthink I have solved the wheel.It involves the proper use of the storkbill.This is the lever that can raise 4 lbs with 1lbs.
ReplyDeleteAny lever can raise 4 lbs as only 1 lb drops. The trick is to get the 1 lb to drop only through the same distance that the 4 lbs rises up. Physics says that's impossible and that the 1 lb weight must always drop down four times farther than the 4 lbs rises.
DeleteThat does not apply here because it's a two dimensional force.
ReplyDelete