BesslerWheel.com

[Jonathan]

I was on a trip before, and now I'm back and have time to get online. I think this is an especially important issue, and I want to know what everyone thinks, not just Michael and me.
I don't know how better support my view of it (barring a realy good analogy coming to mind soon), so for now I'll leave this with a poll.
Also, if anyone didn't know what the triple bar I talked about was, it can be found here, it is in the second to last row and right of the upside-down 'A'.

_________________
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.

[racer270]

hi jonathan...... i think energy is something that is capable of doing work, if it can be harnessed but at less then 100% effiency............Gordy ........welcome back!

[Michael]

Jonathan,

Instead of being intent upon reinventing the wheel (so to speak) why not just ask the inheritors of the people that invented the word? Physicists.
If, for whatever reason you do not want to go that route, I think you should rephrase your question. I think it's faulty. Simply because there are the terms potential energy as well as kinetic energy, and people often shorthand them to just energy, ergo-energy is the capacity to do work. You should ask, as an example,

Is energy some unknown stuff, that is behind the interaction we call work, or is energy
1. the potential to force movement against resistence, over time, also known as potential energy, and
2. a force, against resistence, over time, also known as kinetic energy. In other words both one and two are the definition of work, therefore are work, both as in the potential to do work, and the actual work itself.

Regards,

Michael

_________________
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.

[Jonathan]

I meant more vague than that, the relationship between any energy and work.
There have been a bunch of people on since when I made this thread, and there have been 49 views as of now, but there are only two votes. I want to know what everyone thinks!

[Neo]

Energy and Work I believe are the same thing.

In respect to gravity being a form of energy that can be used for useful work, we've already accomplished that with waterwheels for one.

The problem seems is in trying to come up with a fully mechanical solution utilizing gravity as the power source, that seems to stump us.

Perhaps Bessler did find a novel solution to this problem.

_________________
The power of The One...

[joppa]

Perhaps Neo found one as well, and finds the task of finalizing a solution a bit daunting. (I speak from experience in this regard)

[Fletcher]

Since you asked - My limited take on this is that the term "work" is a manifistation of energy. It is difficult, impossible I would say to achieve work re output, without invoking use of energy, however energy imo can exist separate of work done (in potential form), therefore to me it seems that energy is the base state/root condition, & work is dependant on energy. They are distinct to my mind. You guys may be argueing semantics ateotd.

[jim_mich]

One needs to work to pay ones energy bill.

Electricity is energy. It can be consumed by an electric motor to do work.

A hurricane has energy. It can flatten a house which is work.

Wood is an energy source. It can be burned in a steam engine to produce work.

Gasoline has stored chemical energy. Used in an automobile it produces work.

Water on a mountain has energy. As if flows through a turbine it does work.

Anything that CAN produce heat or movement contains energy.
When it DOES produces heat or movement it does work.

JMHO

[Oxygon]

My 2 cents...

1. Energy is Potential

2. Work is the transformation of Energy

_________________
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.

[Neo]

The boy looks at Neo as he picks up a spoon and tries to imitate the boy's actions. Despite his best efforts, Neo cannot make it bend.

Spoon Boy : Do not try and bend the spoon...that's impossible. _Instead_

only try to realize the truth...

Neo : What truth?

Spoon Boy : There is no spoon.

Neo : There is no spoon?

Spoon Boy : Then you will see, it is not the _spoon_ that bends, it is

only yourself.

[joppa]

Neo: What happens if I fail?

The Oracle: Then Zion will fall

[Jonathan]

5 votes (and counting?).
I agree with Fletcher that this is semantics, but I think semantics can be surprisingly important. Many children naturally come to the same conclusion as Aristotelian physics that heavy things fall faster. But it would then follow that tying light and heavy things together should make the compound object fall slower (light one holds it back a bit). It also follows that the light and heavy thing together is heavier than the heavy thing alone. But then it should fall faster, so there is a contradiction. But kids never realize this until a physics teacher does a demostration and shows it to be incorrect. By arguing semantics we increase understanding and clarity, which often leads to innovation (we all remember Galileo's name because of this).

[ovyyus]

According to my dictionary:

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Work is energy expended over time.

Therefore, IMO, energy and work can not be the same thing. The 'capacity to do work' does not involve time or transformation - energy is timeless. Work is a measurement marked by time.

[joppa]

In the tradition of Solomonic wisdom, I offer my services to cut the two terms in half. Then, to allay any potential discomfort over any potential losses, recombine the terms into less aversive monickers......how about: 'worergy' and 'enerk'. There now, peace should be once again established in this land. Webster and the rest of the world be damned. Our parallel Besslerian dimension MUST remain secure at all cost!

[Michael]

>The 'capacity to do work' does not involve time or transformation


Yes it does.


Mike