• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

A lot of people looked at the Bessler wheel. The wound up spring allegation was made by some that examined it working. No one has ever managed to duplicate the power of any of his wheels using that idea. I'm sure it was tried if for no other reason than to expose the 'fraud' that Bessler obviously was.

I disagree with you, Jim, that a negative can't be proven. Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor produced a proof of Fermat's last theorem around 1994. It is next to impossible to prove a negative. The idea of proving a negative is most likely what caused Sagan to co-opt and popularize, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

A mathematical proof could be evidence of the archaic meaning of perpetual motion or a gravity wheel. An actual working model would be a more forceful proof. Most skeptics would accept the proof of a working model as evidence.

I thoroughly enjoy the history of Fermat's last theorem. It took 357 years for anyone to find a proof that they're reasonably sure wasn't the one Fermat found; that is given he found a flawless proof. Many brilliant minds attempted a proof but it took forever to finally get one.

Gene
 
Hello hellaeon,

hellaeon said:
Use whatever program or means is necessary but in my mind, its a better way to show you know what your talking about. It would also possibly allow you to remove ideas you can see wont work a lot quicker. It will allow you to take it to people who can review it and see where you are going wrong.
Click to expand...

As per your advice I've taken the ideas from a non-moving sculpture to a moving one. There are two principles in this model. I can't claim I was inspired by the Tanakh with these ideas but I can say they are described there.

Gene
 
Jim_Mich said:
IXP, do the math! See if you can engineer a 12 foot wheel so it turns for 54 days, works in either direction at 20 RPM under load and 26 RPM unloaded, rotates up to speed within 3 rotations when given a light push, lift a 70 pound box of bricks as many times as requested, rides on 3/4 inch steel axle pins, be movable from one set of bearing blocks to another by two men when the weights are removed, drives a water screw, and is able to drive a hammer mill with a calculated output of at least 26 watts. Do the engineering calculations. There is no way that a clock mechanism could do these things. Bessler's enemies claimed he used wind up springs or some hidden drive mechanism from a near by room. The historical records and calculations show these claims to be very unlikely.
Click to expand...
If the wheel had actually been observed to rotate for 53 days, it might be interesting. Unfornately, Bessler "demonstrated" this by locking the wheel in a room where no one could observe it, then opened the door after 53 days. Not only does this not prove that it rotated for 53 days (remeber that he was a clockmaker), but it has the distinct odor of trickery. Why not do the same demo, with a small window into the room where it could be observed continuously?

IXP
 
After a little more reading, I learn that Bessler's maid confessed that she kept the wheel spinning by turning a crank in an adjacent room. Sure, she could have been lying (apparently the machine had been dismanted before this). But which is more credible, that she would make this up for no gain, or that Bessler was a fraud who was trying to get a huge sum of money for the machine which he ultimately destroyed? I am not quite ready to overturn the work of Newton and Einstein for such a disputed historical account.

IXP
 
Assume you have a 12 foot wheel with 3/4 inch axle pins on each hub end, which rest in open bearing pockets. The wheel is moved from one set of bearing pockets to another and the bearings are inspected. The wheel turns before and after. Now calculate how much torque would need to be applied to that little 3/4 inch pin to spin the 12 foot wheel weighing somewhere between 200 and 500 pounds up to a speed of 26 RPM within about three rotations.

If the wheel weighed 350 pounds then 450 inch pounds (37.5 ft. lbs.) of torque would spin it to 26 RPM in about 3 rotations as observed by witnesses. That's a lot of torque to transfer to a 3/4 inch shaft without any teeth by a maid in a nearby room. It was obvious that the maid was coached as to what to say by Bessler's enemies and was not telling the truth. The court case was dismissed.

Bessler didn't lock the wheel in a room during testing. The judges locked it there and posted guards so Bessler couldn't wind it up.

The demonstration was in a second floor room in a castle. Because of the thick stone walls a window in the door would most like have had a very narrow line of vision. The wheel might not have been visible even if there had been a window in the door.
 
Jim_Mich said:
Assume you have a 12 foot wheel with 3/4 inch axle pins on each hub end, which rest in open bearing pockets. The wheel is moved from one set of bearing pockets to another and the bearings are inspected. The wheel turns before and after. Now calculate how much torque would need to be applied to that little 3/4 inch pin to spin the 12 foot wheel weighing somewhere between 200 and 500 pounds up to a speed of 26 RPM within about three rotations.

If the wheel weighed 350 pounds then 450 inch pounds (37.5 ft. lbs.) of torque would spin it to 26 RPM in about 3 rotations as observed by witnesses. That's a lot of torque to transfer to a 3/4 inch shaft without any teeth by a maid in a nearby room. It was obvious that the maid was coached as to what to say by Bessler's enemies and was not telling the truth. The court case was dismissed.

Bessler didn't lock the wheel in a room during testing. The judges locked it there and posted guards so Bessler couldn't wind it up.

The demonstration was in a second floor room in a castle. Because of the thick stone walls a window in the door would most like have had a very narrow line of vision. The wheel might not have been visible even if there had been a window in the door.
Click to expand...
We don't know how the torque was applied. I don't know why you assume it was applied to the 3/4 inch shaft, and even if it was it is no big deal. To apply 37.5 foot pounds of torque, if you are turning a crank 1 foot in radius, this requires 37.5 pounds of force. For a crank 2 ft in radius, a mere 17.75 lbs. Why do you think this is impossible?

IXP
 
Hello IXP,

Jim's point is the wheel...
  • rest in open bearing pockets
Any crank used to turn the wheel has to be internal to the wheel. The axle of the wheel isn't geared for a lever to apply any torque to cause the wheel to turn. If the lever were external to the wheel any torque from the lever to the wheel would have to be transmitted thru those bearings. That's highly unlikely.

Gene
 
IXP,
If the maid turned the wheel from an adjoining room then the only way to communicate the turning energy was through the 3/4 inch iron axle pin resting in an open bearing pocket. We know that the wheel was supported by just the 3/4 inch iron axle pins resting in open bearings. For a 3/4 inch pin (3/8 radius) it would take 100 pounds of force to turn the wheel! The force would need to be conveyed to the outside of a smooth round 3/4 inch iron pin resting in an open bearing pocket.

Get your facts straight! Do the math! Study the Bessler history! It all points to a probability that Bessler's wheel was real.

Jim_Mich
 
IXP,
Maybe you misunderstood me? The problem is not the maid turning a crank. The problem is conveying the energy through the small axle pin resting in an open bearing. The witnesses observed the wheel being lifted off the bearings and onto another pair of bearings where it also rotated. They examined the bearings and the adjoining rooms and could find no fraud. They were allowed to start and stop the wheel. The ONLY things Bessler did not allow was for the witnesses to see inside the wheel and they were asked to not overspeed the wheel.

Jim_Mich
 
Macoy said:
Alex (my mate) said he has designed a machine that would suck the energy from the rotation of the earth-moon system. He claims that using the third law of thermodynamics in this way will combat global warming.
Click to expand...

It is not difficult to extract orbital energy from the Moon. In fact, it has already been done in 1959, when the Soviet spacecraft Luna 1 first flew by the Moon. What is difficult is to come up with an economically viable way to extract large amounts of this energy. And I don't believe that Alex came anywhere close to that. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Which brings me to another issue: It is often claimed that building a perpetual motion machine would revolutionize life on Earth and make the inventor insanely rich from selling his unit all over the world. This is not necessarily true. Imagine that someone actually builds a huge, complicated PMM, weighing 1 ton and producing 1 watt of electricity out of nowhere. Sure, this would uproot conventional physics - but who on Earth would buy such a useless contraption? Any commercial wind power generator will easily outperform that in "free" energy output.

Building a PPM is equivalent to discovering a new, unlimited source of energy. While this is theoretically interesting, from a practical point of view it's unremarkable. We don't need unlimited energy. We need cheap energy. There is already far more energy around us - real, actual energy - than we will need in any foreseeable future. There is enough energy stored in the rotation of Earth to power our civilization (at current levels) for 500 million years. And if that's not enough, the Sun produces the same amount of energy every 10 minutes.

Why fantasize about unlimited energy? By all practical means, we already have that! What we lack is cheap, efficient technology to tap in these vast amounts of real energy that are already everywhere around.

Why don't you invent that and get insanely rich? Why do you insist on hunting down imaginary crap that can't be done and won't help us, instead of doing something that can be done and will help us?

Mind boggles.
 
Thabiguy,

I think it would be very difficult for me personally to extract orbital energy from the moon!

It's true that any energy producing machine must be economically attractive in order to be viable. For many years windmills were not economically attractive. They produced too little power and only worked when the wind blew so any power needs during calm weather had to be supplemented by other means. For any machine to be economically viable the energy it puts out must be more valuable than the cost of borrowing money and it must be reliable.

If the cost of borrowing money is 10 percent and if we finance a machine over 10 years then the break even investment would be about $7568 equipment cost per $100 a month of energy produced, be it wind or perpetual motion wheel. If a machine or system is not economically viable then it will never succeed in replacing other machines or systems that are more economical.

Why did the Wright Bros. insist on hunting down imaginary crap that can't be done and won't help us, like making airplanes fly, instead of doing something that could be done?




Jim_Mich
 
Jim_Mich,

of course it would be difficult for you personally to do many things, like for example orbit the Earth. I was not talking about what's difficult for Jim_Mich personally, but what's difficult for mankind.

The difference between you and the Wright brothers is very simple: in order to succeed, Orville and Wilbur needed to utilize laws of nature. In order for you to succeed, you need to prove the known laws of nature dramatically wrong.

However, it is not my desire to persuade you that you are mislead. You have provided the answer to my question: you are doing it because you believe that in order to push human knowledge forward, people need to keep trying to achieve various unlikely things. This is a motivation that I can sympathize with, even if you chose the least likely way to succeed. Although of course you won't build a working "gravity wheel", it's remotely possible that there might be some useful by-product of your efforts, like a new kind of lubricant or something. I won't be holding my breath, though.
 
The difference between you and the Wright brothers is very simple: in order to succeed, Orville and Wilbur needed to utilize laws of nature. In order for you to succeed, you need to prove the known laws of nature dramatically wrong.
Click to expand...

The Wright brothers had a different perspective of reality than the sophisticated European engineers. Rather than taking published data at its word they decided to actually look at the matter themselves.

Thabiguy said:
Sure, this [building a perpetual motion machine] would uproot conventional physics -
Click to expand...

indeed.

Gene
 
hmm...i had an idea for it once based on much the same kind of design but don't have the engineering skills to build it........hmm maybe once I move I shall get around to trying to make one...should be infuriatingly simple either way!

bealie
 
AgingYoung said:
The Wright brothers had a different perspective of reality than the sophisticated European engineers. Rather than taking published data at its word they decided to actually look at the matter themselves.
Click to expand...

Which is a philosophy that I very much admire. It sounds like something Feynman might say. ;)

I see researchers trying to find innovative ways to produce fusion power as today's Wright brothers. In place of balloons and blimps, they have bulky magnetic confinement devices to compete against. In place of Simon Newcomb's The Outlook for the Flying Machine, they must prove wrong Todd Rider's Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium or A general critique of inertial-electrostatic confinement fusion systems. - And, like the Wright brothers, they have no law of nature to prove wrong to reach their goal; as with flight, they only need to find a clever way to duplicate what occurs in nature all the time.

And I sure hope that after many many trials and failures, like the Wright brothers, they will eventually succeed.
 
When Orville and Wilbur began their quest most people thought the laws of Nature made it impossible for men to fly. The Wright Bros. started by gather together the known knowledge concerning flying. They then tried to use that knowledge to build airplanes. They found that much of the knowledge was wrong. So they ran tests and learned what it took to do what many considered impossible. They developed new knowledge that is today the basis of aerodynamics. They didn't overturn any laws of nature, instead they overturned man's concept of the laws of nature concerning flying.

In the same way, if a method of making a gravity powered perpetual motion machine is found it will not alter the laws of nature since they don't change. It will only alter man's perception of Nature's laws.

Jim_Mich
 
I'm sorry, Jim_Mich, but you are wrong. You seem to misunderstand what a law of nature is.

A law of nature is not a "fundamental operating principle of the universe" as you seem to perceive it. It is a scientific generalization. And as such, it can be disproved, simply by a repeatable contradicting observation. Please look up "Physical law" on Wikipedia to learn more about the concept of laws of nature and how they differ from other scientific concepts, like for example theories.

What you say is not true, there was no law of nature at the end of the 19th century saying that it is impossible for men to fly, or any similar thing. The Wright brothers didn't have to prove any known law of nature wrong to succeed. Feel free to check the list of laws of nature by looking up "Laws of science" on Wikipedia. It's shorter than you might think.

By contrast, there is a law of nature saying that perpetuum motion machines are impossible. It literally says that - that energy cannot be created. It's called the law of conservation of energy, and you will find it in the list under this name. In order to build a PMM, you have to prove this law of nature wrong. Which, as explained above, is not impossible in principle. I just don't believe that you will pull that off.

So again, the difference between the Wright brothers and you is that they didn't need to disprove a law of nature. You do.
 
Jim_Mich said:
When Orville and Wilbur began their quest most people thought the laws of Nature made it impossible for men to fly.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Nothing in the "laws of Nature" then nor now suggested flight was impossible. The Wright boys made an engineering achievement, not a scientific one.
 
AgingYoung said:
The Wright brothers had a different perspective of reality than the sophisticated European engineers. Rather than taking published data at its word they decided to actually look at the matter themselves.



indeed.

Gene
Click to expand...

They did the research, but they didn't want to. It wasn't until after they built the 1901 glider, using the then-current aerodynamic data, and took data that showed that the published data was wrong, that they did their own research.
They were very much aware that a week in the library can save a year in the lab. The very first letter in the collected papers of the Wright brothers is from Wilbur to the Smithsonian, asking for advice on the current literature.
 
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. ....Lord Kelvin, 1895

I am apt to think that the more concave the wing to a certain extent, the more it gives support, and that for slow flights a long thin wing is necessary, whereas for short quick flights a short broad wing is better adapted. ...Sir George Cayley, 1773-1857

Sir George Cayley is sometimes called the father of aeronautics. His contributions are mostly obscure, if nothing else because he came of age when the science of aerodynamics bordered the ludicrous in public's estimation. It was the age of Bonaparte, and Europe was concerned with more earthly matters.

Different people had different opinions leading up to an actual plane that would fly.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom