Remember me
▼ Content

Perpetual Motion


Perpetual Motion29-06-2021 15:25
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
To be technical, when light from a distant star travels billions of light years so we can see, it is perpetual. With scientists, they are correct when they say perpetual motion in a machine is impossible.
At the same time, a machine can conserve energy and/or momentum. How a machine conserves energy and how efficiently it can do this is up to who builds it and what the laws of physics allows for.
As for myself, I have 2 different concepts that I am pursuing. My own design is rather simple and there's no reason it shouldn't work. It will be conserving energy as a part of a bound system. It will be conserving the Earth's gravity.
With the other concept, shifting the swing of a pendulum to rotate around an axis other than its fulcrum is much more challenging. And as everyone knows, a pendulum's swing is very efficient. Yet how to change it from a swing to be a part of a rotation? Can pulleys allow for this?
And a last strange thought, could this have been realized before it became impossible and scientists knew calculus?
29-06-2021 17:11
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
This is a concept of Johann Bessler that I am building. If it does not work, then I'll leave his work to others.
The pulley at bottom right is the same distance from the corner of the disc as the pulley at the bottom left is. The weight at bottom center will move straight up the arm. And for the sake of argument, let's say this takes work, okay?
If on average, the weight to the right travels 2.5 times the distance that the weight at bottom center moves up the arm, does engineering allow for this? Basically, if something drops a distance of 20, can it lift something to a height of 8?
Does engineering allow for that? How about physics?
And now we get into ratios. If the weight dropping has a potential of 50% of its mass/weight, then 80% of its potential is used to lift a weight. With that said, can 10% of its potential rotate the wheel? And if this is based on 60 in.lbs. or 6.8 n-m of torque, can 6 in.lbs. or 0.68 n-m of torque rotate a wheel?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FVdDoJLszB2XR1F86

p.s., just in case, 6 inch pounds means that if all weights on the wheel are the same distance from the axle, can a 1 lb. weight 6 inches from the axle cause the wheel to rotate? And 6 inch lbs. equals 0.68 newton-meters of torque.
With calculus, I can consider thermodynamics but someone else realized those formulas. So with me it's more about how I can use calculus as a tool.

p.s.s, Go U Sub!!! (u substitution)
Edited on 29-06-2021 17:22
29-07-2021 02:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9882)


James___ wrote:With scientists, they are correct when they say perpetual motion in a machine is impossible.

They would be referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you have any questions about this, Into the Night can explain to you the different types of perpetual motion machine fallacies and how to spot them.

James___ wrote: At the same time, a machine can conserve energy and/or momentum.

You need to be careful here. Friction affects all machines and causes a reduction in momentum. The law of motion you are citing presumes a theoretical zero-friction system. Of course, you need to enter a nonzero friction value for your particular machine and yes, over time it will lose all of its momentum.


James___ wrote: ... and what the laws of physics allows for.

James__, when you don't know what to write you write something with the words "allows for" ... which tells everyone that you didn't know what to write.

Just so you know, the laws of physics allow for everything that is physically possible.

James___ wrote: As for myself, I have 2 different concepts that I am pursuing. My own design is rather simple and there's no reason it shouldn't work.

... except that you are pursuing a perpetual motion machine which is impossible. Your design cannot work. Beyond that, I see no reason it shouldn't work.

James___ wrote:It will be conserving energy as a part of a bound system. It will be conserving the Earth's gravity.

You alluded to this at 2:17 in your Bessler Wheel Torque Test Successful video. This is an error. Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force. There is no such thing as conservation of force.

James___ wrote: With the other concept, shifting the swing of a pendulum to rotate around an axis other than its fulcrum is much more challenging.

The technical term for this is "moving the fulcrum" and is as easy as merely moving the fulcrum.

At 2:39 in your Bessler Wheel Torque Test Successful video you mention that engineering differs from physics. This is correct.

*Science predicts nature.
*Technology controls nature.
*Engineers use science's ability to predict nature to build technology that controls nature.

James___ wrote: Can pulleys allow for this?

You just didn't know what to write, did you? The answer is that yes, pulleys will allow you to do whatever you wish to do.

James__, the reason no Bessler wheel will work, i.e. rotate forever, is that you cannot eliminate all friction from the axle. It will slow down and stop regardless of how the weights are distributed. I'm sorry.


Attached image:

29-07-2021 06:46
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
And yet the test was successful. Only it's not perpetual motion. It is not possible for a machine to propagate its own motion. It is possible for a machine to conserve energy.
And yet none of you can say I changed the swing of a pendulum to swing from a different fulcrum. And to think I'm going off of a 300 year old book.
https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler

I get it. There's this "new" science, right?

Attached image:


Edited on 29-07-2021 07:00
30-07-2021 18:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16001)
James___ wrote:
To be technical, when light from a distant star travels billions of light years so we can see, it is perpetual.

No, it isn't. Light radiating from a point source like star dissipates with distance. Energy is not being destroyed, but it is dissipating over a larger area. The intensity of the light is not perpetual.
James___ wrote:
With scientists, they are correct when they say perpetual motion in a machine is impossible.

It is impossible. No machine needed.
James___ wrote:
At the same time, a machine can conserve energy and/or momentum. How a machine conserves energy and how efficiently it can do this is up to who builds it and what the laws of physics allows for.

Energy is always conserved, but it dissipates. This is what entropy is about: the randomness of a system. Energy always moves from concentrated regions to less concentrated regions, if it moves at all. For example, hot regions always heat cold regions. Cold regions never heat hot regions.

2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t); where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

James___ wrote:
As for myself, I have 2 different concepts that I am pursuing. My own design is rather simple and there's no reason it shouldn't work. It will be conserving energy as a part of a bound system. It will be conserving the Earth's gravity.

Gravity is not energy. Energy is always conserved. No machine needed.

Perpetual motion machines are impossible because all machines dissipate energy. Energy, however, is conserved.

The laws of thermodynamics operate over a closed system. That is simply a system that you choose that has a specific boundary, and that system must be consistent (you cannot change the system or compare it to any other system).

No energy source or energy sink can be considered from outside that chosen system.

Taking a machine and the room it is in as the system, the machine will generate heat due to internal friction. This thermal energy is dissipated into the room. The machine itself will lose energy to the room. Energy is still conserved over that system.

James___ wrote:
With the other concept, shifting the swing of a pendulum to rotate around an axis other than its fulcrum is much more challenging. And as everyone knows, a pendulum's swing is very efficient. Yet how to change it from a swing to be a part of a rotation? Can pulleys allow for this?


This type of 'perpetual motion machine' has been built before, and it always runs down...particularly if any kind of load is applied.
James___ wrote:
And a last strange thought, could this have been realized before it became impossible and scientists knew calculus?

It has always been impossible. It doesn't matter if scientists knew that or not. It doesn't matter of calculus exists or not. It doesn't matter if the laws of thermodynamics have been created or not.

A theory of science does not change what that theory describes. It is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics that causes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for example.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-07-2021 18:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16001)
James___ wrote:
This is a concept of Johann Bessler that I am building. If it does not work, then I'll leave his work to others.
The pulley at bottom right is the same distance from the corner of the disc as the pulley at the bottom left is. The weight at bottom center will move straight up the arm. And for the sake of argument, let's say this takes work, okay?
If on average, the weight to the right travels 2.5 times the distance that the weight at bottom center moves up the arm, does engineering allow for this? Basically, if something drops a distance of 20, can it lift something to a height of 8?
Does engineering allow for that? How about physics?
And now we get into ratios. If the weight dropping has a potential of 50% of its mass/weight, then 80% of its potential is used to lift a weight. With that said, can 10% of its potential rotate the wheel? And if this is based on 60 in.lbs. or 6.8 n-m of torque, can 6 in.lbs. or 0.68 n-m of torque rotate a wheel?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FVdDoJLszB2XR1F86

p.s., just in case, 6 inch pounds means that if all weights on the wheel are the same distance from the axle, can a 1 lb. weight 6 inches from the axle cause the wheel to rotate? And 6 inch lbs. equals 0.68 newton-meters of torque.
With calculus, I can consider thermodynamics but someone else realized those formulas. So with me it's more about how I can use calculus as a tool.

p.s.s, Go U Sub!!! (u substitution)

Bessler wheels are not perpetual motion. The machine WILL run down. Energy is always dissipated from it. This machine is attempting perpetual motion of the 1st type. You can't create energy from nothing. There is nothing to replace the energy lost from the machine.

Energy is still conserved. It's just dissipated.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-07-2021 18:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16001)
James___ wrote:
And yet the test was successful. Only it's not perpetual motion. It is not possible for a machine to propagate its own motion. It is possible for a machine to conserve energy.
And yet none of you can say I changed the swing of a pendulum to swing from a different fulcrum. And to think I'm going off of a 300 year old book.
https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler

I get it. There's this "new" science, right?


Energy is always conserved. No machine required. It always dissipates as well. Machines require concentrated energy to run.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
07-09-2021 16:36
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
And yet the test was successful. Only it's not perpetual motion. It is not possible for a machine to propagate its own motion. It is possible for a machine to conserve energy.
And yet none of you can say I changed the swing of a pendulum to swing from a different fulcrum. And to think I'm going off of a 300 year old book.
https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler

I get it. There's this "new" science, right?


Energy is always conserved. No machine required. It always dissipates as well. Machines require concentrated energy to run.



From a Canadian website; https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy

I think what I'm building will work and prove Bessler was successful. IMHO Bessler's wheel creates a system where the heat content of the Earth's gravitational field can be conserved as linear momentum.
This would create a union between A and B (where they overlap) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/union-function-python/ in which gravity (A) is accelerating a weight associated with (
.
At the same time, the total amount of energy in A + B = energy will not change. This is because B would be conserving energy from A and this would allow for the A union B (Au
to become a closed system.
Somehow scientists and engineers failed to consider this.
07-09-2021 17:49
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
AuB (A union
. With Bessler's wheel, A = AuB. The u (union) allows for energy to be transferred from A to B. The total amount of energy in the system remains the same (constant/unchanged).
If A is 1,2,3 and B is 0, then AuB = 0, 1, 2, 3. Then it can be considered how much energy does B conserve? Calculating I which is the Moment of Inertia and its velocity, then its kinetic energy would be made known.
And that is the amount of energy that A would not have but the system would
allow for AuB to = A. If B is returned to a value of 0 then there would be A and B but they would not be a closed system with a union. Why B would be 0.
Attached image:


Edited on 07-09-2021 17:55
11-09-2021 17:15
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
There are 2 other ways in which perpetual motion is possible. One method is very simple while the other requires math and finding out a specific cause and effect relationship. This is because creating a necessary difference in 2 opposing would require what is necessary to start movement.
And this coming week I should be performing my final test on my build. If it works better then I have realized Bessler's work and a working wheel would be possible by the end of next month.
As for what science allows for;
Law of conservation of momentum states that. For two or more bodies in an isolated system acting upon each other, their total momentum remains constant unless an external force is applied. Therefore, momentum can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the wheel itself is an isolated system, then when a "falling" weight accelerates according to f = ma where
a = d/t. And then when the force of the "falling" weight is greater than the Moment of Inertia of the wheel/other weights, a will be a percentage relative to the moment of inertia times 9.81. I did tests on this years ago and have considered that an overbalanced weight will need to have a force equal to 5% of the moment of inertia of the wheel.
An example is if a wheel has a radius of 50 cms and has 4 weights that are .5 kgs. The frame of the wheel will have its own moment of inertia. And then the moment of inertia for the weights has to be factored and then this factored to the frame. Then when a weight goes overbalanced, the torque it generates will need to be 5% of the moment of inertia before it becomes overbalanced.
This is because all of the other weights and the frame of the wheel will be acting as a flywheel and will be conserving momentum. In this instance the "falling" weight could be considered as linear momentum because its force comes from gravity while everything else can be considered as angular momentum because the wheel is thought of as an isolated system.
This would then allow for scientists to be right when they say it is self perpetuating because it is in a geosynchronous orbit about the Earth. Isn't science and engineering fascinating?

p.s., what happens when a person goes from a Norwegian accent to a service connected hearing loss because of having a Norwegian accent because you're not "one of them".

Edited on 11-09-2021 17:16
12-09-2021 00:59
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
The picture shows my new discs and how much larger they are than my "old" discs. If this allows for the weight wheel to move up the arm more quickly with no loss of torque, it will be a much quicker spin.
The math I've done if I got all measurements correct (which I didn't), the amount of torque generated will be 7 times greater. This is because as the weight wheel moves towards the axle of the wheel, it is not being lifted.
As the weight wheel rotates that is being lifted. Its radial movement. If all works out, it will be considered that it is conserving the heat content of the Earth's gravitational field as linear momentum. Energy is merely changing states.

When I changed the image from .jpeg to .png, I use Linux software and with their GNU image manipulation program, I decide how I want to export the image. With Microsoft, "save as" has the same function. https://photos.app.goo.gl/4r3rmdzFjECnirRVA
Attached image:


Edited on 12-09-2021 01:05
12-09-2021 18:21
James___
★★★★★
(4945)
Since I have a neighbor, I can only use my noisy tools when she's not home. That usually means a few hours every weekend. With where I am at with my build modifications, I'll be able to try and relax and do other things like read more. It's not always easy working through trauma. That helps to create a mental block as well. And even sitting at my computer going over design after redesign to get it how it needs to be causes me problems as well. Then again, healthy people aren't motivated to see a project like this through.
Since I expect it to work (I know there's a chance it won't rotate because of conventional thinking, I'm still getting used to the idea myself that the arm is moving away from the weight) then when healthy and having a shop to work in, I might actually like working on this. That's where I want to do a show in Utrecht, Netherlands and use that as motivation.
Attached image:





Join the debate Perpetual Motion:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Watching the Train Wreck in Slow Motion42216-09-2021 17:10
Perpetual Motion is possible, i have included the details1626-04-2019 04:33
2nd perpetual Motion Concept309-09-2018 19:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact