Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[rlortie]

No! it is not "moon powered", if you wish to believe so, I appreciate it, helps cover up the truth until I am ready to give a full explanation. It is the properties of moon power that I relate to. Newtonian fluids seeking their own level and how this is effected by gravity.

As previously stated: the design is under build, I am taking pictures at each stage. if it runs leading to patent I will release the pictures with text for the handyman to build his own. if it does not run then its going to:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

As for internal mass; my design is strictly based on fluid density, the only suborbital would be on a molecular level.

It is not my place to prove you right or wrong, only debate our indifference on subject matter and not let it get personal. We both may learn something of value.

As rasselasss, stated:

agree to disagree and move on please...

If we all took such a position, this forum would became a dead pool for "Armchair theorists and IMO die on the vine.

Some of my best creative thinking comes to me while sitting here typing a response. Please do not take that away from me.

Ralph

[Tarsier79]

This debate is just like Besslers wheel. Around and around it goes.

[primemignonite]

"This debate is just like Besslers wheel. Around and around it goes." - Tarsier79

And where it stops nobody knows.

Call me foolish if you like, but I simply will-to-not dismiss the possibility that there is at work in some few cases, a most powerful intruding reality existing outside that of Nature's.

(Out of respect, I always like to capitalize Her proper noun name, which also is a title when used with "Mother" - the one are not supposed to mess with.)

Bessler obviously did accomplish a unique thing. The multifariously witnessed and attested-to operations of it over a long period of time, I do believe served and serve to almost prove for ultimate genuineness.

This summed, observed result stood (and stands) in conflict-to, the well defined and uniformly applicable Natural laws.

So, given all that, what then remains as being rather obvious as a possibility standing for, the authentically unique behavior of the wheels of Bessler?

What?

Along this very line, Bessler himself had a great deal to say and do. Is it all to be simply dismissed and tossed out as the ill-begotten ravings of a mystically believing fanatic?

(For one at least, I would not DARE! Which from amongst us would?)

I know and accept that very many do not and will not desire to be taken to such a place of acceptance. Against them I've no enmity whatsoever - I am sure I understand and in a way wholly not condescending. We all have our individual paths going through life, and these have their high and low points. Good. It is really interesting and useful to live and learn.

Truly, I hope that Ralph's newest try will be Triumphant, and that as a result (and even more importantly) it will not end up at that place of baldest, most impudent infamy! ("Psychology" indeed! It is so good a thing that it's imagineer is retired. Physicists make rotten psychologists, obviously.)

On that high-note ending . . .

James

[rlortie]

This debate is just like Bessler,s wheel. Around and around it goes.

Well you seem to agree to that fact!

Yes it goes around and around, like perpetual motion we seem to never run out of playing field. So run with the ball, carry it as far as can. Another player is always ready to pick up the slack.

Debate is good for the mind, it keeps you on your toes, wondering what defense is in order for the next bout. Only your own imagination knows the boundary's.

Ralph

[Grimer]

I write with some trepidation in the face of these good folk who deride Ralph's personal conviction that gravity turned the wheel, for I too share that opinion and stand by in support of his oft stated view.

I believe that I will show you how you are right and so is he, later this year - I hope I'm right.

JC

I'm rather taken with Cloud Camper's notion that Newtonian Gravity is merely a catalyst. I know I have said that this is a question of semantics but thinking things over I can see that since Ersatz gravity is a much more powerful force than Newtonian gravity it makes sense to think of the energy as coming primarily from Ersatz than Newtonian.

If this is correct then it justifies Jim's idée fixe.

[Grimer]

This debate is just like Bessler,s wheel. Around and around it goes.

Well you seem to agree to that fact!

Yes it goes around and around, like perpetual motion we seem to never run out of playing field. So run with the ball, carry it as far as can. Another player is always ready to pick up the slack.

Debate is good for the mind, it keeps you on your toes, wondering what defense is in order for the next bout. Only your own imagination knows the boundary's.

Ralph

I agree.

If we do ever get to our final destination I think we'll find we enjoyed the journey more than the arrival.

[eccentrically1]

No! it is not "moon powered", if you wish to believe so, I appreciate it, helps cover up the truth until I am ready to give a full explanation. It is the properties of moon power that I relate to. Newtonian fluids seeking their own level and how this is effected by gravity.

I don't think it is moon powered, I was teasing.
Fluids seek level because they are in a state of matter that assures it. A better phrase would be 'center of mass seeks level in 3 dimensions'.
When an ice cube melts in a glass, it changes from a solid to a fluid. The center of its mass seeks level in the 3 dimensions of the glass . 'Fluids seek level' is another way of saying gravity acts as though all of an object's mass is concentrated at the center, and fluids' ability to level, because of their state of matter, is evidence that gravity acts this way.

Gravity doesn't discriminate between states of matter. The math equation for gravity

(Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2)

where G=gravitational constant (6.67*10^-11Nm^2/kg^2)

only needs measurements of mass and distance (from centers of mass) to solve; it's the same equation for any state of matter, solid, liquid (fluid), gas or plasma.

The gravitational force of the moon and sun, in combination with the gravitational force and centripetal force of rotating earth, comprise the system that creates fluid tides rising and falling. In other words, tidal power is a gigantic co-gravity, Cp force, and to some degree, electromagnetically, powered "wheel" that would either cease to turn, or be much weaker, if the moon or sun or earth weren't contributing their force and energy to the system. In some other words, it is an open thermodynamic system that is open to 3 types of energy.

One of the fundamental reasons perpetual motion is impossible is that no system can be completely isolated from the rest of the universe. There is always some interaction; irreversible frictional conversions.

[Wubbly]

The only way I could conceive of a gravity-only wheel working is if the "system" included the wheel and the earth. On each rotation, the wheel would steal a little energy from the earth's rotation, and feed that energy back into the wheel. The law of conservation of energy would not be violated.

It would be like the satellite fly-by (gravity assist) . The kinetic energy of the satellite is increased, while the kinetic energy of the planet is decreased. No laws of physics are broken.

Maybe use a spring to transfer the energy from the earth to the moving mass on the wheel. As the mass moves away from the center of the wheel's rotation, the movement is stopped by a spring attached with a certain anchor point (perhaps the center of the wheel's rotation). As the mass moves back toward the center of the wheel, it takes a different path on the wheel, and the spring would have needed to move it's anchor point to a different position on the wheel, so instead of pulling back on the earth to reset, you pull back on the wheel to reset. Perhaps a variant of an MT-26 combined with an MT-137.

Unfortunately, in each configuration I can think of, the torques on the down-trip balance the torques on the up-trip, and nothing is gained. With friction, you would loose even more.

In all likelihood, Bessler was a very clever fraud who managed to fool a lot of people. 300 years later, he's still fooling people.

Looks like Bessler got the last laugh.
.

[daanopperman]

Wubbly ,
I have have asked this before , if a planet was not moving in space , like in dead still , not rotating or anything , would the fly-by of a satellite still increased it's PE if it cannot rob something or anything from the planet , what would the planet then have lost . Please explain .

[murilo]

Ha, ha, haaaa....
How funny to see this discussion and arguments!!!
The giants are stepping and dancing over all...
Ha, ha... I see a messing cloud of green dots all on the air...
Take care!
M

[rlortie]

Wubbly wrote:

On each rotation, the wheel would steal a little energy from the earth's rotation, and feed that energy back into the wheel. The law of conservation of energy would not be violated.

I thank you for your input, but comparison to Mt 26 and MT 137 that you claim "steals" rotational kinetic energy does not apply to Fluid Dynamics/Mechanics. Bessler's concept is not being pursued here.

In my hypothetical approach using tides as an example; the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun and the rotation of the Earth. This action has been ongoing since creation. Movement of mass that does not appear to steal kinetic energy from earths rotation. If if does, it is insignificant for the volume or mass effected.

There is an old proverb about the employee who thought he was indispensable. He was asked to put his finger in a glass of water and then take it out, did he leave a hole? Obviously no, he did not leave a hole. Which is a good thing for him. If he did prove to be indispensable then his chances of promotion would be slim to none.

The question is: what properties of conservation and how much friction were involved/utilized to fill the hole after the fingers removal?

OK! now it is time for the"naysayers" rebuke by asking; but how much force was used to displace the water with the finger, a valid question. It is also what I seek to overcome by using the density of fluid to make its own hole. So in a sense it is not on OB wheel but rather a UB wheel.

During my in depth research of the most highly acclaimed mathematicians regarding fluid dynamics I find they leave us with the statement: "It is assumed that fluid dynamics does not break any laws of conservation".

Both Leonhard Euler and Daniel Bernoulli, working together could not or refused to give a definite answer. To date I have not found any mathematician, scientist or physicist who will comment otherwise. IMO this leaves the door ajar possibly for a weak spot in the laws we are subject to accept without question as naysayers do.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

During my in depth research of the most highly acclaimed mathematicians regarding fluid dynamics I find they leave us with the statement: "It is assumed that fluid dynamics does not break any laws of conservation".

Could I see those links please?

[Tarsier79]

IMO, there are not too many here that "accept without question". Asking the question is why we are all here in the first place. When experimentation and evidence conclusively confirms a "law of physics", then you have to accept the fact, or dig that hole further into delusion.

It is good to have a few here that have a good knowledge of physics to help us with less!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,
It is a fact Gravity is a force that can turn Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy, and when the Forces of Gravity is doing work on a moving object that is Gravity induced Kinetic Energy thus it is correctly called the Force of Gravity, it is only a unfounded assumption that it is a conservative force, as I have not seen any signs of it acting that way in Nature, or in any of my experiments! I have made a lot of the same mistakes as most, but where as most give up and say it most be that gravity is a conservative force that is why I failed! Well these people should put the blame in the right place, on their own shoulders, they where not intelligent enough or brave enough to finish what they started, some here do not defend this weak excuse and blame gravity! Some here have the balls to stand up for what they believe is right, and will see it through to the end. Edit, with much respect to Ralph!!!
Gravity is not a conservative force it moves the whole Universe, and that is “work done� and work doing, so Gravity is and always was “the Force of Gravity�
Anyone can tell me my designs are crap, but do not tell me its because Gravity is a conservative force, because then I know it was not a honest opinion!!!
Regards Trevor

Edit, Hi Kaine,
Physics teaching is a good thing, it is then up to the individual to take from it what he or she believes to be right, I very strongly believe that you cannot get energy from nothing, it can only be transferred of which there would be loses, I also believe very strongly that any force can be tapped to do work, just needs the right mechanics to do it thats all!
With respect Trevor

[jim_mich]

I guess ignorance is bliss. Some people just don't know how ignorant they really are. If you expect to make a perpetual motion wheel, you first need to learn natures laws. You need to learn what conservative means. Some here sound like crazy lunatics. Is it any wonder most intelligent people think perpetual motion believers are crazy?