A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[jim_mich]

Cox told the truth. His clock was capable of running perpetually as long as the Earth with its atmosphere remained or until the clock wore out. Cox and others were fully aware that it gained force due to changing air pressure.

As far as figuring out what Bessler "plainly said", maybe I am light years ahead of the pack, for I think I understand most all of his writings. Of course I could be wrong or delusional.

[ovyyus]

Cox was aware that his clock gained force from changing air pressure, yet he still called it PM. Was he wrong to refer to it as PM? Would Bessler also be wrong to refer to his device as PM if the force which lifted his weights, allowing his wheel to run perpetually, was the result of thermal changes in the mechanism?

[WaltzCee]

Cox was aware that his clock gained force from changing air pressure, yet he still called it PM. Was he wrong to refer to it as PM? Would Bessler also be wrong to refer to his device as PM if the force which lifted his weights, allowing his wheel to run perpetually, was the result of thermal changes in the mechanism?

no. Emphatically, no.
.

[jim_mich]

This is the problem with using the simple wording "perpetual motion". Each person seems to have his/her own concept of what is included as perpetual motion and what is not perpetual motion. This is exactly why I proposed the two definitions. I'll re-post them here...

Scientific Perpetual Motion:

Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.


Classical Perpetual Motion:

Motion that continues indefinitely without any tangible source of energy; possibly due to gravity or manipulation of inertia.


In arriving at these definitions I needed to make some distinctions and limits. I decided the most obvious limit would be a total enclosure or room. A device would be considered classical perpetual motion if it is capable of continually moving when placed inside an enclosure where no energy of any type could pass through. No heat. No pressure changes. No light. No electromagnetic energy. No motion of the enclosure. This is much like Karl did by placing Bessler's wheel inside a sealed room in the castle, though that did not rule out temperature or pressure variations.

Cox needed to use the phrase "perpetual motion" in order to communicate information about his clock. What other words might he have used? Cox's clock would not meet my CPM definition. It also would not meet my SPM definition. But it would fit a simple PM definition of being capable of moving perpetually. This illustrates how far skeptics have pushed the boundaries of the meaning of "perpetual motion".

[FunWithGravity2]

JIM

"Classical Perpetual Motion:

Motion that continues indefinitely without any tangible source of energy; possibly due to gravity or manipulation of inertia."

Jim, did we lose CF/CP somewhere along the way as a possible non-tangible source of energy?


Crazy Dave

[Stewart]

Here's a reminder of 'sGravesande's view on the matter taken from page 5-6 of "REMARQUES SUR LA POSSIBILITÉ DU MOUVEMENT PERPETUEL" [Remarks on the Possibility of Perpetual Motion] dated 1722 (translation by me)...

"Before going into the matter, it is necessary to establish the state of the question. One calls in mechanics 'perpetual motion', a machine whose principle of movement does not depend on any outside agent, & whose movement never stops as long as the materials do not wear themselves out.
One sees by this definition, that a clock, which would wind itself by the wind; by the changes that moisture & dryness, or cold & heat, produce in certain bodies; or finally by the changes in the weight of the atmosphere, would not be a perpetual motion. However it would not be difficult to construct such a clock, which could not stop other than by some breakdown in its parts; but it would be the outside agents which would make the machine move."

Stewart

[rlortie]

Manipulation (control) of inertia is best applied by using Cf/Cp, so no, I would not say it has been lost along the way.

Jim is chasing Cf while I am bound down the road of Cp. There is no red light at the intersection, when we meet inertia is manipulated.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Each person seems to have his/her own concept of what is included as perpetual motion and what is not perpetual motion.

My primary interest is Bessler's concept of perpetual motion.

I think Bessler was worried about how his machine would be classified. Perhaps this was the reason for his concern that a potential buyer might try to snatch their money back once the secret was revealed? Endless legal argument is marginally more tolerable with a healthy bank balance :)

IMO, 'sGravesande nails the perfect description of mechanical PM. I wonder how Bessler might have responded, or do we already have a fair idea based on Bessler's angry final exit from the machine room at Kassel?

[jim_mich]

I say pot-aa-toe (Cp) while Ralph says pot-ah-toe (Cf). Cp and Cf are the same exact force. The only difference is the direction that each is measured from. If we hang a weight on the end of a string, is the tension different when measured at the weight than when measured at the support? The tension is exactly the same. A weight riding on a wheel produces an outward force that is balanced by an inward force of its restraints. Whenever Cp is present then you will also have Cf present, and visa versa. Gravity pushes the Moon toward the Earth and gravity pushes the Earth toward the Moon. Do we have a different words for gravity depending on whether we are on the Moon or on the Earth? No! Then why do we need different words for Cf and Cp?

Someone once said that we need to now which is which during calculations. This make no sense because both are tensions and tensions are always positive. The restraint always pulls inward while the weight always pulls outward. When the motion stops then the force also stops. The force is an artifact of the motion.

Some people state that Cp (the inward pull of the restraint) is a real force while Cf (the outward tnedency of the weight) is a ficticious force. This conjures up thoughts of truth vs lies or real vs fake.

As a final comment I see no reason to differentiate between Cp and Cf, so I simple use CF to mean that force that develops between a restraint and a weight moving in a curve path that is caused by inertial momentum of the moving weight.

[FunWithGravity2]

Can I refer to CF/CP as "artificial gravity" ? and just alleviate all my confusion with them.


Dave

[WaltzCee]

. . .
Jim is chasing Cf while I am bound down the road of Cp. . . .

Ralph

or you are chasing Cp and Jim is bound down the road of Cf. I suppose it's a matter of spin.
.

[Wubbly]

Hi WaltzCee.
If you press the Quote button and paste a quote, you then need to press the Quote button again to close the quote. This puts in the [/quote] tag.
Then you can type a response to the quote. If you want to see if you did it right, you can press the Preview button as many times as you like until you get it right :)

[Michael]

We don't need to rewrite the definition of perpetual motion. What we need are for people who are interested in free energy to accept what that term means fully, without having to warp the understanding so it fits into a certain mold or have to invent new catch phrases like over unity.
Bill's argument is a plain one. And it's a good one. Was today's current and proper definition of perpetual motion the accepted one thoughout the course of history? 'sGravesande' seems to have understood most of it but was Bessler's conception the same? And were other peoples conceptions the same? Like Cox, who seems to have plastered perpetual motion all over his reading material.
Stewart like Bill, I think, I don't know why you've linked 'sGravesande's conception to Bessler. Is there some proof that Bessler endorsed 'sGravesande's meaning?

[ovyyus]

Michael, I think 'sGravesande's definition of PM reflects the general academic consensus of the time. It's good to know. Bessler obviously wasn't an academic therefore his definition of PM was probably quite different. Non-academics do tend to have more widely varying belief's and definitions :)

[justsomeone]

Does the scientific community consider gravity an energy source?