Yes folks (duh!), and this is maybe theee reason after all why it can't be done, and if it is possible why a PM machine in my opinion would be the greatest invention of all time!
Why?.....because nature couldn't do it! ......and it's usually the case that nature does it first (because it had a hell of a head-start!), shows us the way and then all we have to do is try and copy it!
The Wright Brothers for example, when critics of their day scorned at the possibility of manned flight, they only had to gaze at the skies at the soaring birds to be inspired, only later to make a closer inspection of the aerofoil shape of their wings.
But where are we mobilists to seek our inspiration for useable PM from?
.....the electron in it's orbit? - It can't be tapped.
.....the heavenly bodies in their orbits? - Don't think so, the moon is actually drifting away because of it's effect on the earth's tides, so we don't get wave energy for nothing!
So that's Bohr's quantum world and Eintein's Universe taken care of, but what about the reality we experience....the Newtonian world.
PM in this world has no likeness..........no equal!
It's unparalled in nature, if it were possible then maybe nature would have found a way to make it so by now, and use it.....rather than being dependent on the sun.
Think of it.....being independent from the sun would be rather desirable if I were Mother Nature!
Please......somebody, something just give me a clue!
What were those Bessler wheel eyewitness accounts again? hehee!
PM has no Equal in Nature!
Moderator: scott
-
coylo
PM has no Equal in Nature!
Last edited by coylo on Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Coylo, I could not agree more. Nature always seems to show the way on principle.
I'm also not so much presently interested in application as I am in a principle. As you say, the principle of aerodynamic lift was always there to observe in Nature - the Wright Bros never invented any principle, they investigated and applied what they observed.
Where is our principle? I agree that we don't seem to have one. There does not seem to be one example of any natural energetic principle that unlocks energy from G. Surely if it were possible to extract energy from G then Nature would somehow find a way to exploit it, all the more so if the process and/or application were 'simple'. Yet Conservation Of Energy is all we observe in the natural processes of the World. Where is it observed otherwise?
I'm also not so much presently interested in application as I am in a principle. As you say, the principle of aerodynamic lift was always there to observe in Nature - the Wright Bros never invented any principle, they investigated and applied what they observed.
Where is our principle? I agree that we don't seem to have one. There does not seem to be one example of any natural energetic principle that unlocks energy from G. Surely if it were possible to extract energy from G then Nature would somehow find a way to exploit it, all the more so if the process and/or application were 'simple'. Yet Conservation Of Energy is all we observe in the natural processes of the World. Where is it observed otherwise?
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Coylo;
I disagree that nature does not display an example of PM; the sun rising every morning, the moon and planets in their orbits are PM as far as human history is concerned. Yes, they say the moon is drifting but that doesn't affect my impression and inspiration of the awesome display of the consistancy of day/night, the seasons, the years etc. When I watch waves at the beach, or even to see a river flow it inspires me at the abundance of natural energy available to us; we can call it PM if we like; we could call the whole universe PM if we want. I guess it is a matter of perspective/semantics. For example, the fact that the sun and the moon basically take up the exact amount of space in our visible sky when the sun is 400 times larger than the moon; to me; is like an awesome design; but the scoffer will say, it has to be that way; or that it is not EXACTLY the same size etc. The sun burning at a constant rate in my lifetime is PM as far as my life is concerned. Of course we know it will burn out eventually but...what were we talking about again?
I disagree that nature does not display an example of PM; the sun rising every morning, the moon and planets in their orbits are PM as far as human history is concerned. Yes, they say the moon is drifting but that doesn't affect my impression and inspiration of the awesome display of the consistancy of day/night, the seasons, the years etc. When I watch waves at the beach, or even to see a river flow it inspires me at the abundance of natural energy available to us; we can call it PM if we like; we could call the whole universe PM if we want. I guess it is a matter of perspective/semantics. For example, the fact that the sun and the moon basically take up the exact amount of space in our visible sky when the sun is 400 times larger than the moon; to me; is like an awesome design; but the scoffer will say, it has to be that way; or that it is not EXACTLY the same size etc. The sun burning at a constant rate in my lifetime is PM as far as my life is concerned. Of course we know it will burn out eventually but...what were we talking about again?
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
It is said our moon is drifting away. Does that mean all the moons of all the planets are drifting away? Are the moons of Mars, a planet without tides, drifting away?
Jeff
Jeff
-
coylo
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Jeff, I think the phenomenon would only apply to planets (with moons) that had liquid oceans.
Patrick, you're right that the all celestial bodies could be considered to be in a state of PM, but my point was that this dosen't help us in trying to build a PM machine. Trying to extract energy from a planets orbit could cause its orbit to decay, maybe even resulting in a planetary collision!
My point is that there are states of PM out there, but you dare not tinker with those delicate balances because there will be consequences, nor is any energy reachable, or extractable in the case of an electrons orbit.
There are exceptions to certain rules though. From an early age we are taught that the Sun is the source of all life, the source of all energy - for life, but this isn't true.
There are very primitive forms of bacteria (a slime) that live in caves, in total darkness, eating rock - surviving off these minerals since life on earth began!
Then there is the life that exists around the volcanic activity of the ocean floor, where sunlight can't penetrate, surviving off geothermal vents!
Remember the very first Voyager mission to the planets. Nasa scientists expected the distant planets to be cold, desolate places because of the little solar energy that reached them, but they turned out to be far more violent and extreme than anyone could of ever imagined!
Where are they getting the energy from to maintain those winds.....those storms.....some of them even bigger than the Earth itself?
Could it have anything to do with gravity?.....Could it have anything to do with the heat energy of their cores?
....and would the earth's core ever cool down and solidify?
Patrick, you're right that the all celestial bodies could be considered to be in a state of PM, but my point was that this dosen't help us in trying to build a PM machine. Trying to extract energy from a planets orbit could cause its orbit to decay, maybe even resulting in a planetary collision!
My point is that there are states of PM out there, but you dare not tinker with those delicate balances because there will be consequences, nor is any energy reachable, or extractable in the case of an electrons orbit.
There are exceptions to certain rules though. From an early age we are taught that the Sun is the source of all life, the source of all energy - for life, but this isn't true.
There are very primitive forms of bacteria (a slime) that live in caves, in total darkness, eating rock - surviving off these minerals since life on earth began!
Then there is the life that exists around the volcanic activity of the ocean floor, where sunlight can't penetrate, surviving off geothermal vents!
Remember the very first Voyager mission to the planets. Nasa scientists expected the distant planets to be cold, desolate places because of the little solar energy that reached them, but they turned out to be far more violent and extreme than anyone could of ever imagined!
Where are they getting the energy from to maintain those winds.....those storms.....some of them even bigger than the Earth itself?
Could it have anything to do with gravity?.....Could it have anything to do with the heat energy of their cores?
....and would the earth's core ever cool down and solidify?
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Coylo,
There are no axles in biological nature and hence nothing that depends upon them such as wheels, propellers, cranks, etc. If perpetual motion is dependant upon a wheel structure for some reason then you might add it to the list above.
MC
There are no axles in biological nature and hence nothing that depends upon them such as wheels, propellers, cranks, etc. If perpetual motion is dependant upon a wheel structure for some reason then you might add it to the list above.
MC
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Actually, I see the cosmos FILLED with examples of perpetual motion!
However, to "see" it as I do, one must be using my definition of "perpetual motion".
My definition of a perpetual motion device is any device which continously outputs energy by extracting the energy associated with the masses of its parts (whether they are moving or not). Needless to say, such a "perpetual" device is not truly perpetual in the absolute sense fo the term because, although it can operate for a very long time (like billions of years!), it will, eventually, grind to halt as the mass - energy of its parts is exhausted.
So, where do I see such a process in nature?
Well, in all naturally occurring radioactive materials, the nuclei of the isotopes involved emit energy in the form of high speed alpha or beta particles or as photons of high energy gamma radiation. This energy is gotten when the particles within their nuclei rearrange themselves in such a way as to reduce the mass of those particles. The "lost" mass then shows up in the energy that the "decaying" nucleus emits. And, although some radioactive materials can continue to emit radiation for millions of years, they all, eventually, will decay until they form stable materials at which point their energy emission comes to a halt.
Our entire cosmos may, itself, be a giant perpetual motion machine of the "Second Kind". IF we inhabit an oscillating Big Bang / Big Crunch cosmos, then, perhaps hundreds of billions of years after each Big Bang, there is a Big Crunch if which all of the infinite amount of cold "dead" matter of the cosmos is gravitationally compressed down into an infinite array of Super Black Holes.
Not only is all of the matter of the cosmos drawn into these solar system sized black holes, but also all of the stray electromagnetic energies that exist in the cosmos. Then, under the crushing pressures generated as the Super Black Holes grow in radius, the incoming electromagnetic energy will be converted directly back into matter whose pressure slowly builds to a point where even the gravity field inside of the Super Black Hole can no longer contain it. The result? Each of the infinite number of Super Black Holes erupts, more of less simultaneously, and an infinite number of Big Bangs will fill the cosmos with the high energy subatomic particles from whence future galaxies, star systems, planets, life, and mobilists will be created.
This process is truly perpetual and infinite in extent.
However, I think the observation made it this thread's first post was that there does not seem to be any gravitational perpetual motion machines in Nature and, therefore, that would indicate that such devices are physically impossible to construct.
Well, if we consider humanity part of Nature and anything they make as also part of Nature, then the work of Bessler would represent the appearance of a gravitational perpetual motion machine in the realm of Nature! Perhaps we should not make a distinction between what is natural and what is artificial in our cosmos. Perhaps the correct view is that everything is actually "natural" in the final analysis.
I suspect that IF we knew all of the facts of reality, then we would find out that working overbalanced gravity wheels have been successfully constructed dozens or even hundreds of times throughout the history of humanity on this planet! Unfortunately, we have no information about them and only know about the work of Bessler. I have no doubt that, on every inhabited planet in our galaxy that has sentient humanoid life, these types of devices have been built.
On some of the planets, unlike ours, the device's design was not lost and, although not a significant source of power, helped pave the way for other devices with greater power outputs.
Reality of gravitational perpetual motion devices? Yes, they must be real, but only for those so very lucky enough to find the mechanism that allows a truly chronically overbalanced wheel to maintain the CG of its rotating weights on one side of its axle at all times.
Eventually, Bessler's secret mechanism will be found...it could happen this year!
ken
However, to "see" it as I do, one must be using my definition of "perpetual motion".
My definition of a perpetual motion device is any device which continously outputs energy by extracting the energy associated with the masses of its parts (whether they are moving or not). Needless to say, such a "perpetual" device is not truly perpetual in the absolute sense fo the term because, although it can operate for a very long time (like billions of years!), it will, eventually, grind to halt as the mass - energy of its parts is exhausted.
So, where do I see such a process in nature?
Well, in all naturally occurring radioactive materials, the nuclei of the isotopes involved emit energy in the form of high speed alpha or beta particles or as photons of high energy gamma radiation. This energy is gotten when the particles within their nuclei rearrange themselves in such a way as to reduce the mass of those particles. The "lost" mass then shows up in the energy that the "decaying" nucleus emits. And, although some radioactive materials can continue to emit radiation for millions of years, they all, eventually, will decay until they form stable materials at which point their energy emission comes to a halt.
Our entire cosmos may, itself, be a giant perpetual motion machine of the "Second Kind". IF we inhabit an oscillating Big Bang / Big Crunch cosmos, then, perhaps hundreds of billions of years after each Big Bang, there is a Big Crunch if which all of the infinite amount of cold "dead" matter of the cosmos is gravitationally compressed down into an infinite array of Super Black Holes.
Not only is all of the matter of the cosmos drawn into these solar system sized black holes, but also all of the stray electromagnetic energies that exist in the cosmos. Then, under the crushing pressures generated as the Super Black Holes grow in radius, the incoming electromagnetic energy will be converted directly back into matter whose pressure slowly builds to a point where even the gravity field inside of the Super Black Hole can no longer contain it. The result? Each of the infinite number of Super Black Holes erupts, more of less simultaneously, and an infinite number of Big Bangs will fill the cosmos with the high energy subatomic particles from whence future galaxies, star systems, planets, life, and mobilists will be created.
This process is truly perpetual and infinite in extent.
However, I think the observation made it this thread's first post was that there does not seem to be any gravitational perpetual motion machines in Nature and, therefore, that would indicate that such devices are physically impossible to construct.
Well, if we consider humanity part of Nature and anything they make as also part of Nature, then the work of Bessler would represent the appearance of a gravitational perpetual motion machine in the realm of Nature! Perhaps we should not make a distinction between what is natural and what is artificial in our cosmos. Perhaps the correct view is that everything is actually "natural" in the final analysis.
I suspect that IF we knew all of the facts of reality, then we would find out that working overbalanced gravity wheels have been successfully constructed dozens or even hundreds of times throughout the history of humanity on this planet! Unfortunately, we have no information about them and only know about the work of Bessler. I have no doubt that, on every inhabited planet in our galaxy that has sentient humanoid life, these types of devices have been built.
On some of the planets, unlike ours, the device's design was not lost and, although not a significant source of power, helped pave the way for other devices with greater power outputs.
Reality of gravitational perpetual motion devices? Yes, they must be real, but only for those so very lucky enough to find the mechanism that allows a truly chronically overbalanced wheel to maintain the CG of its rotating weights on one side of its axle at all times.
Eventually, Bessler's secret mechanism will be found...it could happen this year!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Nature doesn't produce everything, nature produces recursive functions that do not depend on precision, to create machines based on basic structures.
Human, on the contrary, produces machines that depend on the precision of the parts.
Nature did not create the internal combustion engine for example ..
Human, on the contrary, produces machines that depend on the precision of the parts.
Nature did not create the internal combustion engine for example ..
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
On the contrary, the principle of pressurised containment performing work is observable in Nature.Nature did not create the internal combustion engine for example ..
-
coylo
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Yeah LIB, but your missing the point!
An internal combustion engine was "achievable", the science of the time agreed that it could be done. Hell, nature has been extracting energy from chemical reactions for millions of years, and is far more efficient at it!
Nature trumps us again!
An internal combustion engine was "achievable", the science of the time agreed that it could be done. Hell, nature has been extracting energy from chemical reactions for millions of years, and is far more efficient at it!
Nature trumps us again!
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Coylo;
If you admit the earth in it's orbit is an example of PM then it is quite robust; just look at a history of the asteroid collisions!
If you admit the earth in it's orbit is an example of PM then it is quite robust; just look at a history of the asteroid collisions!
-
Joel Wright
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:43 am
- Location: U.S.A.
- Contact:
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Coylo says:My point is that there are states of PM out there, but you dare not tinker with those delicate balances because there will be consequences,.
Coylo I may be interperting this wrong, but I don't see how using gravity to power a engine will effect its power anymore than its power is effected holding your house down or any large mass for that matter.I don't see how it will effect gravity one way or the other.
Coylo I may be interperting this wrong, but I don't see how using gravity to power a engine will effect its power anymore than its power is effected holding your house down or any large mass for that matter.I don't see how it will effect gravity one way or the other.
Work with gravity and gravity will work for you.There are more than two sides to a wheel.
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Joel what I believe Coylo is saying is if you tried to tap a planetary motion three will be consequensus that will eventually show up at some point in time. Planetary motion isn't perpetual motion anymore than a gyroscope spun by hand is to a microbe that lives only nanoseconds anyway.
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Well, yes I must agree that nature use combustion of hydrogen as a fuel .. But not linear motion ..
My point was, that natural mecanisms are created from recursive functions..
Human mecanisms requires structural precision to work .. A combustion engine doesn't work if there is no precise tolerance..
AND, nature looks like an open system, there is no enclosure of the energy, everything moves from one place to another and changes configuration .. But yes during a relatively short interval, some structures emerge from particle collisions.. Example, planets, animals, humans, etc...
These complex systems are temporary..
Human try to make things closed and permanent .. Our engines are tapping energy from a fuel tank that we must refill .. We do not tap energy from the right place.
The engine contains oil to limit friction, if the engine casing is cracked, the oil goes away and the system doesn't work and is useless..
Nature can transform useless systems in something usefull ..
Example, a decayed organis material will transmute into larvae that will become flies which will move to another place and die to become food for something else ....
The way we make things work is not natural, but we use some basic concepts of nature to make things work however.
To tap energy from nature, we should look how nature performs.....
And I am also in agreement with the person who wrote that laws are limits....
I should not come to the subject of the origin of gravity, but to be brief, I believe gravity is due to the relative difference in time-scale between locations of an object .. (By this I mean that two points of the same object overlap into a different time interval.. Kind of hard to explain, but as I see it, there can be two locations with different time constant due to mass/density) ..
My point was, that natural mecanisms are created from recursive functions..
Human mecanisms requires structural precision to work .. A combustion engine doesn't work if there is no precise tolerance..
AND, nature looks like an open system, there is no enclosure of the energy, everything moves from one place to another and changes configuration .. But yes during a relatively short interval, some structures emerge from particle collisions.. Example, planets, animals, humans, etc...
These complex systems are temporary..
Human try to make things closed and permanent .. Our engines are tapping energy from a fuel tank that we must refill .. We do not tap energy from the right place.
The engine contains oil to limit friction, if the engine casing is cracked, the oil goes away and the system doesn't work and is useless..
Nature can transform useless systems in something usefull ..
Example, a decayed organis material will transmute into larvae that will become flies which will move to another place and die to become food for something else ....
The way we make things work is not natural, but we use some basic concepts of nature to make things work however.
To tap energy from nature, we should look how nature performs.....
And I am also in agreement with the person who wrote that laws are limits....
I should not come to the subject of the origin of gravity, but to be brief, I believe gravity is due to the relative difference in time-scale between locations of an object .. (By this I mean that two points of the same object overlap into a different time interval.. Kind of hard to explain, but as I see it, there can be two locations with different time constant due to mass/density) ..
re: PM has no Equal in Nature!
Most days, I really wonder how many of my fellow Bessler wheel researchers have actually picked up John Collin's books and read them.
Over the past year, I have discovered that some of this forum's "Bessler PM experts" on the subject have never even read the first page.
For those that lack the belief, faith and confidence of such a wheel, I suggest you buy all of his books and read them several times.......
p
Over the past year, I have discovered that some of this forum's "Bessler PM experts" on the subject have never even read the first page.
For those that lack the belief, faith and confidence of such a wheel, I suggest you buy all of his books and read them several times.......
p