JamesL Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 I thought I'd share work I have been doing on what is known as Bessler's Wheel. His original book at the Rare Book Library at Utrecht University in Utrecht, Netherlands. If you click on the yellow go to digital version button, the digitized version of his 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 Why perpetual motion is impossible from Dr. Baird; https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/ Where I am at on my build. It stops rotating because the retraction line stops it. And according to Newton's 1st Law of Motion, gravity is an outside force as well as the resistance of the retraction line. The trick is that the weight that rotates upwards does not move further away from its fulcrum at the top right of the disc. So technically no work is performed moving the weight closer to the axle of the wheel. The work performed is the wheel rotating. And when it rotates, the arm moves away from the fulcrum of the weight wheel assembly. And with Bessler, he wanted to start an engineering school and chances are he knew analytical trigonometry. Also Gottfried Leibniz has been said to watch an actual Bessler wheel. And if all goes well and this demonstration is in fact an accurate representation, next month I should have a working wheel which then would demonstrate that gravity has energy. And this then would allow for the conservation of energy. This is the prototype and I have started working on a display model. Dr. Jaski at Utrecht University knows that I would like to do a demonstration with Bessler's original book.
MigL Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 Another day, another fanatic wasting his time ( and ours ).
exchemist Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 1 hour ago, JamesL said: I thought I'd share work I have been doing on what is known as Bessler's Wheel. His original book at the Rare Book Library at Utrecht University in Utrecht, Netherlands. If you click on the yellow go to digital version button, the digitized version of his 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 Why perpetual motion is impossible from Dr. Baird; https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/ Where I am at on my build. It stops rotating because the retraction line stops it. And according to Newton's 1st Law of Motion, gravity is an outside force as well as the resistance of the retraction line. The trick is that the weight that rotates upwards does not move further away from its fulcrum at the top right of the disc. So technically no work is performed moving the weight closer to the axle of the wheel. The work performed is the wheel rotating. And when it rotates, the arm moves away from the fulcrum of the weight wheel assembly. And with Bessler, he wanted to start an engineering school and chances are he knew analytical trigonometry. Also Gottfried Leibniz has been said to watch an actual Bessler wheel. And if all goes well and this demonstration is in fact an accurate representation, next month I should have a working wheel which then would demonstrate that gravity has energy. And this then would allow for the conservation of energy. This is the prototype and I have started working on a display model. Dr. Jaski at Utrecht University knows that I would like to do a demonstration with Bessler's original book. It won't work of course, so you are wasting your time. The reason why (apart from the obvious point about violating conservation of energy) is that when the weights are closer in to the wheel and have less leverage, there are more of them. This counteracts the torque of the weights that are at full extension from the wheel on the other side. As for your point about gravity having energy, yes we know: it's called "gravitational potential energy" and we learn about it in school, around the age of 11.
Ghideon Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 2 hours ago, JamesL said: Where I am at on my build Nice build. Bessler did not construct any device that displayed perpetual motion; such devices does not work*. I think any current discussion is more about whether a deliberate fraud was committed or not. Here is a paper you may find interesting: Quote The remarkable life of Councillor Orffyreus was first told in a biographical dictionary compiled in the late 18th century by Friedrich Wilhelm Strieder, the court librarian and archivist of Hesse-Kassel.24 In the 19th century, the story was repeated in popular German collections of curiosities.25,26 Strangely, the substance of those accounts — which establishes that Orffyreus perpetrated a deliberate fraud— escaped the attention of many of the authors who wrote about him in the 20th century. Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p (Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was known as Orffyreus) *) according to currently established laws of physics; supported by observations and theories.
JamesL Posted April 8, 2022 Author Posted April 8, 2022 55 minutes ago, exchemist said: Quote As for your point about gravity having energy, yes we know: it's called "gravitational potential energy" and we learn about it in school, around the age of 11. And yet Dr. Baird said that gravity is a force that has no energy. When you said "gravitational potential energy", what created that potential? This is why he said that gravity is a force based on the attractive potential between 2 bodies. ie., if you don't lift something, it can't fall. This means that it's potential energy is created by the working done to move one body away from another body. The guy has a PhD. Besides, I'll be making some iron acetate and use tannic acid in tea to help ebonize wood since pine doesn't have as much tannic acid as oak. Who'd think that chemistry has anything to do with wood working, right? I mean there's iron acetate II and III. When the iron acetate II interacts with the tannic acid then it becomes iron acetate III, right? I'm just a simple wood worker who thinks that ebonizing some details will help to highlight the mahogany, white oak and red oak. 19 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Nice build. Bessler did not construct any device that displayed perpetual motion; such devices does not work*. I think any current discussion is more about whether a deliberate fraud was committed or not. Here is a paper you may find interesting: Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p (Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was known as Orffyreus) *) according to currently established laws of physics; supported by observations and theories. Thanks. If you watch the wheel rotate 90º, it actually rotated more from basically an at rest position. With 4 weights, what the video shows is the potential for it to work. There is a lot of math involved in this because the swing of a pendulum was shifted. That's not a typical math problem. This is one reason why I mentioned that Bessler most likely knew analytical trigonometry. If you consider 1712, Newton published his En Principia in 1687 while Bessler was born in 1680. Both Newton and Leibniz came up with basic formulas for calculus around that time. I'll give you a basic math problem to consider, okay? We'll go with 1 meter and 1 kg. With the downward swing, the weight travels πm/2. The ascending weight travels (πm/2 + πm/4)/2. The ascendant path is about 75% the length of the downward path. After this, we can get into acceleration at (9.81 m/s)/100 = 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then with the 2 weights that are dead weights, f = ma. Then we have the weight wheel assembly at the bottom that is 1m sin 0º * 9.81 m/s shows how gravity is affecting it being lifted. Then the weight wheel 90º after top center is 1m * 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then we could use algebra to solve this little problem, right? And I know you guys don't like math so........I mean we're talking before calculus was invented and what built the cathedrals in Europe.
JamesL Posted April 8, 2022 Author Posted April 8, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: Nice build. Bessler did not construct any device that displayed perpetual motion; such devices does not work*. I think any current discussion is more about whether a deliberate fraud was committed or not. Here is a paper you may find interesting: Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p (Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was known as Orffyreus) *) according to currently established laws of physics; supported by observations and theories. Thanks. If you watch the wheel rotate 90º, it actually rotated more from basically an at rest position. With 4 weights, what the video shows is the potential for it to work. There is a lot of math involved in this because the swing of a pendulum was shifted. That's not a typical math problem. This is one reason why I mentioned that Bessler most likely knew analytical trigonometry. If you consider 1712, Newton published his En Principia in 1687 while Bessler was born in 1680. Both Newton and Leibniz came up with basic formulas for calculus around that time. I'll give you a basic math problem to consider, okay? We'll go with 1 meter and 1 kg. With the downward swing, the weight travels πm/2. The ascending weight travels (πm/2 + π0.5m/2)/2. The ascendant path is about 75% the length of the downward path. After this, we can get into acceleration at (9.81 m/s)/100 = 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then with the 2 weights that are dead weights, f = ma. Then we have the weight wheel assembly at the bottom that is 1m sin 0º * 9.81 m/s shows how gravity is affecting it being lifted. Then the weight wheel 90º after top center is 1m * 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then we could use algebra to solve this problem, right? And I know you guys don't like math so........I mean we're talking before calculus was invented and what built the cathedrals in Europe. I edited to change πm/4 to π0.5m/2. Same values but the 0.5m shows the inner position of the weight wheel. When it's at 45º, gravity's affect on it is *sin45 and it's moved in 1/4 of the distance to the axle. What is overlooked is that from sin45 to sin90, it's distance from the center-line of the axle barely changes. 30 sin45 = 21.21 while 20 sin90 = 20. Yet on the descending side, 40 sin90 = 40 while 40 sin45 = 28.28. It's that difference that allows the wheel to conserve momentum. The wheel accelerates and then continues to run on conserved energy. And when the ascending weight is being moved inward, conservation of angular momentum applies as well. I think if it all works out, then Bessler will help kids to learn like he wanted to do. Edited April 8, 2022 by JamesL
JamesL Posted April 9, 2022 Author Posted April 9, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ghideon said: Nice build. Bessler did not construct any device that displayed perpetual motion; such devices does not work*. I think any current discussion is more about whether a deliberate fraud was committed or not. Here is a paper you may find interesting: Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p (Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was known as Orffyreus) *) according to currently established laws of physics; supported by observations and theories. Ghideon, 2 reasons why I pursued his work was Leibniz's supposed first hand observation and in the drawing after portrait of a charlatan, his 3 pendulums are actually 3 crosses. And in the video I showed I pointed that out. Bessler was a devout Christian and that might've been his way of saying have faith. Bessler also wrote; Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html And that's what I've built. I use 1 quadrant of the external drum. Instead of the drum rotating, the wheel rotates to lift the weights. And do you know if the title of the thread could be changed to Bessler's Wheel? As for my build, I am making new retraction discs, they'll be wider. This is so it'll be easier to catch the fulcrum and then release it. I am dealing with a difficult medical situation and might demonstrate the prototype while finishing the display model. And on a side note, I didn't notice a section for atmospheric chemistry and physics in here. I have an experiment that I've been pursuing and this could help with it. It's about an observation that the IPCC has made but doesn't understand. It was in their 2013 climate report and in NOAA's Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. It's in the middle of the page. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html And this could lead into PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) which causes holes in the ozone layer. Neither process is understood. I've actually developed a hypothesis for what the IPCC has observed with regards to CO2, CH4 and N2O. And it's possible that the experiment that I've been pursuing will show the sequence that allows for it. Edited April 9, 2022 by JamesL
Ghideon Posted April 9, 2022 Posted April 9, 2022 8 hours ago, JamesL said: The wheel accelerates and then continues to run on conserved energy. and for example 4 hours ago, JamesL said: This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. Sorry, I have some trouble to follow your argumentation and description. To avoid confusion and to allow for discussion: -Are you claiming the device you are building will actually perform perpetual motion; breaking established laws of physics? Or: -Is this a mechanics/engineering project where you want to repeat the any fraud committed by Bessler to make his wheel look like perpetual motion? For instance by hiding springs, batteries, motors or other devices. 9 hours ago, JamesL said: And I know you guys don't like math so........ That generalisation that does not apply to me.
exchemist Posted April 9, 2022 Posted April 9, 2022 11 hours ago, JamesL said: Thanks. If you watch the wheel rotate 90º, it actually rotated more from basically an at rest position. With 4 weights, what the video shows is the potential for it to work. There is a lot of math involved in this because the swing of a pendulum was shifted. That's not a typical math problem. This is one reason why I mentioned that Bessler most likely knew analytical trigonometry. If you consider 1712, Newton published his En Principia in 1687 while Bessler was born in 1680. Both Newton and Leibniz came up with basic formulas for calculus around that time. I'll give you a basic math problem to consider, okay? We'll go with 1 meter and 1 kg. With the downward swing, the weight travels πm/2. The ascending weight travels (πm/2 + πm/4)/2. The ascendant path is about 75% the length of the downward path. After this, we can get into acceleration at (9.81 m/s)/100 = 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then with the 2 weights that are dead weights, f = ma. Then we have the weight wheel assembly at the bottom that is 1m sin 0º * 9.81 m/s shows how gravity is affecting it being lifted. Then the weight wheel 90º after top center is 1m * 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then we could use algebra to solve this little problem, right? And I know you guys don't like math so........I mean we're talking before calculus was invented and what built the cathedrals in Europe. Don't worry, there are plenty of people here who are at least as adept at mathematics as you are likely to be. It's a science forum. By the way, I watched the video and burst out laughing. The wheel conveniently moves only a quarter of one turn...... and then one of the weights falls off. Hilarious. Why not wait until the thing can perform a full rotation - without bits dropping off - before trying to make a video? But of course the snag then, from your point of view, will be that it will be obvious it doesn't work. As always, a video is fairly useless at describing a mechanism. One needs a diagram with a written explanation, showing how the wheel is constructed. I notice for instance that the weight that is initially at the bottom starts to slide inward on its shaft as it rises. It is not clear what mechanism is doing that and this is crucial as it is obviously doing work on the weight against gravity. Can you provide a diagram and explanation of the mechanism that lifts the weight? 7 hours ago, JamesL said: Ghideon, 2 reasons why I pursued his work was Leibniz's supposed first hand observation and in the drawing after portrait of a charlatan, his 3 pendulums are actually 3 crosses. And in the video I showed I pointed that out. Bessler was a devout Christian and that might've been his way of saying have faith. Bessler also wrote; Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html And that's what I've built. I use 1 quadrant of the external drum. Instead of the drum rotating, the wheel rotates to lift the weights. And do you know if the title of the thread could be changed to Bessler's Wheel? As for my build, I am making new retraction discs, they'll be wider. This is so it'll be easier to catch the fulcrum and then release it. I am dealing with a difficult medical situation and might demonstrate the prototype while finishing the display model. And on a side note, I didn't notice a section for atmospheric chemistry and physics in here. I have an experiment that I've been pursuing and this could help with it. It's about an observation that the IPCC has made but doesn't understand. It was in their 2013 climate report and in NOAA's Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. It's in the middle of the page. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html And this could lead into PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) which causes holes in the ozone layer. Neither process is understood. I've actually developed a hypothesis for what the IPCC has observed with regards to CO2, CH4 and N2O. And it's possible that the experiment that I've been pursuing will show the sequence that allows for it. There is an Earth Science section on this form, with a whole sub-section devoted to climate.
exchemist Posted April 9, 2022 Posted April 9, 2022 18 hours ago, JamesL said: Thanks. If you watch the wheel rotate 90º, it actually rotated more from basically an at rest position. With 4 weights, what the video shows is the potential for it to work. There is a lot of math involved in this because the swing of a pendulum was shifted. That's not a typical math problem. This is one reason why I mentioned that Bessler most likely knew analytical trigonometry. If you consider 1712, Newton published his En Principia in 1687 while Bessler was born in 1680. Both Newton and Leibniz came up with basic formulas for calculus around that time. I'll give you a basic math problem to consider, okay? We'll go with 1 meter and 1 kg. With the downward swing, the weight travels πm/2. The ascending weight travels (πm/2 + π0.5m/2)/2. The ascendant path is about 75% the length of the downward path. After this, we can get into acceleration at (9.81 m/s)/100 = 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then with the 2 weights that are dead weights, f = ma. Then we have the weight wheel assembly at the bottom that is 1m sin 0º * 9.81 m/s shows how gravity is affecting it being lifted. Then the weight wheel 90º after top center is 1m * 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then we could use algebra to solve this problem, right? And I know you guys don't like math so........I mean we're talking before calculus was invented and what built the cathedrals in Europe. I edited to change πm/4 to π0.5m/2. Same values but the 0.5m shows the inner position of the weight wheel. When it's at 45º, gravity's affect on it is *sin45 and it's moved in 1/4 of the distance to the axle. What is overlooked is that from sin45 to sin90, it's distance from the center-line of the axle barely changes. 30 sin45 = 21.21 while 20 sin90 = 20. Yet on the descending side, 40 sin90 = 40 while 40 sin45 = 28.28. It's that difference that allows the wheel to conserve momentum. The wheel accelerates and then continues to run on conserved energy. And when the ascending weight is being moved inward, conservation of angular momentum applies as well. I think if it all works out, then Bessler will help kids to learn like he wanted to do. I think I may now have understood why you think that this device could work. I notice you said in your opening post that:- "The trick is that the weight that rotates upwards does not move further away from its fulcrum at the top right of the disc. So technically no work is performed moving the weight closer to the axle of the wheel. The work performed is the wheel rotating." It looks as if you think that because the torque exerted by the descending weight, which is at full extension along its arm, exceeds the torque due to the rising weight, which is progressively being wound in along its arm, there is a torque imbalance in favour of accelerating the wheel. This would of course be in conflict with the energy analysis, which would be that as the rising weight is returned to the same height as the descending weight, no net work is done and thus the wheel will not accelerate. But I think you will find there is an additional source of torque, exerted on the arm of the rising weight, due to the mechanism used to pull it in. This will exactly counteract the torque imbalance arising from the difference in leverage from the weights themselves. So no free lunch.
JamesL Posted April 9, 2022 Author Posted April 9, 2022 2 hours ago, exchemist said: I think I may now have understood why you think that this device could work. I notice you said in your opening post that:- "The trick is that the weight that rotates upwards does not move further away from its fulcrum at the top right of the disc. So technically no work is performed moving the weight closer to the axle of the wheel. The work performed is the wheel rotating." It looks as if you think that because the torque exerted by the descending weight, which is at full extension along its arm, exceeds the torque due to the rising weight, which is progressively being wound in along its arm, there is a torque imbalance in favour of accelerating the wheel. This would of course be in conflict with the energy analysis, which would be that as the rising weight is returned to the same height as the descending weight, no net work is done and thus the wheel will not accelerate. But I think you will find there is an additional source of torque, exerted on the arm of the rising weight, due to the mechanism used to pull it in. This will exactly counteract the torque imbalance arising from the difference in leverage from the weights themselves. So no free lunch. When it works you'll find out that there was nothing free about it. Kind of like CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. And yet science does not allow for that either.
exchemist Posted April 9, 2022 Posted April 9, 2022 13 minutes ago, JamesL said: When it works you'll find out that there was nothing free about it. Kind of like CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. And yet science does not allow for that either. Haha. It won't work. Of that, there is no doubt whatsoever.
Ghideon Posted April 9, 2022 Posted April 9, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, JamesL said: When it works you'll find out that there was nothing free about it. I got curious and checked your first source: Quote In 1745, he fell to his death while he was building a windmill, taking his secrets with him to the grave. Emphasis mine, source https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler Questions: How do we know that what you intend to build is Bessler's design? Where did you get hold of the details of Bessler's work? (I'm also expecting a response to my earlier questions) Edited April 9, 2022 by Ghideon
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ghideon said: I got curious and checked your first source: Emphasis mine, source https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university-library-special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler Questions: How do we know that what you intend to build is Bessler's design? Where did you get hold of the details of Bessler's work? (I'm also expecting a response to my earlier questions) The best thing I can tell you is when I am finished and it works, the scientists and engineers at Utrecht University could decide for themselves. They'll be able to study both the wheel and Bessler's original book. And since they'd speak Deutsche which the language Bessler's book is written in, they wouldn't need it translated. And this is one reason why it is necessary for me to do a professional build. And then there is the matter of Dr. Ulrich Poschl who is a professor of atmospheric chemistry and physics at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. I told him he should try the experiment that I've been pursuing. And then he asked why he should want to work with me. So I've spent the last few years learning atmospheric chemistry. I thought he should do the experiment himself but anymore it is my experiment. So if Bessler's Wheel does work, I'll have to see what I can do about pursuing my experiment as well. It could be interesting why CO2 supports the Chapman cycle but first someone would have to have a sound hypothesis and an understanding why the normal rules of chemistry don't apply. Why the IPCC has no answer. And there is a reason why Dr. Poschl might be willing to work with me on my science experiment.The Republic of Saxony became Saxony, Germany so Bessler's wheel is their history. I doubt that my father ran from Nazis for his life (he was from Norway) would have nothing to do with it. Still, I'll probably move to Spain if I am successful. I could just say that Americans do not like someone who has lived in a socialist country like Norway. After all, the U.S. is a capitalist country. Different values. And I guess where I did not grow up learning just one way, I can consider other ways. Basically I can be open minded while still considering the laws of physics and how they can actually be applied. The Earth's gravity is an external source of energy which means that when Newton's 1st Law of Motion states the machine will stay at rest unless an external force acts on it. And this is why I'd be successful. And I hope you have a nice weekend. Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) There is a basic flaw in the logic of why perpetual motion is impossible. When an object accelerates for 2 seconds, if it weighs 1kg then it's energy will be 192.4722 J while at 9.81m/s it has 48.11805 J of kinetic energy. Why this matters is I've been needing an ileostomy for over 10 years. The biggest hold up has been people saying "well scientists say it's impossible, 2nd law of thermodynamics". A working Bessler Wheel will clearly demonstrate that scientists ignored their own laws of physics. And as a result people attacked me for considering engineering and conservation of energy. No one has ever shown that when an object is accelerated by gravity that it's kinetic energy does not increase and as I mentioned, the Earth's gravity is an external force. As I work at this build I am doing, I will enjoy thinking about this. What you'll need to understand is I've done the math and the tests. The work I am doing is based on empirical evidence which is quantum theory. Until something is observed we can not know what it is. Relativity allows for predicting a phenomena before observing such as light bending more than matter when passing near the Sun. This is because Einstein believed that light was propagated by something (aether). And with light, it interacts equally with space and time. That suggests energy because it's not interacting with gravity. Matter interacts with gravity. Why they have 2 different paths when passing near the Sun. This has been written about for almost 100 years. The distinction I made between relativity and quantum theory goes to a discussion Einstein had with I believe it was Niels Bohr. And this gets into the atmospheric chemistry that I've been pursuing. And Bessler's Wheel will help me to have a life. Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL
exchemist Posted April 10, 2022 Posted April 10, 2022 3 hours ago, JamesL said: There is a basic flaw in the logic of why perpetual motion is impossible. When an object accelerates for 2 seconds, if it weighs 1kg then it's energy will be 192.4722 J while at 9.81m/s it has 48.11805 J of kinetic energy. Why this matters is I've been needing an ileostomy for over 10 years. The biggest hold up has been people saying "well scientists say it's impossible, 2nd law of thermodynamics". A working Bessler Wheel will clearly demonstrate that scientists ignored their own laws of physics. And as a result people attacked me for considering engineering and conservation of energy. No one has ever shown that when an object is accelerated by gravity that it's kinetic energy does not increase and as I mentioned, the Earth's gravity is an external force. As I work at this build I am doing, I will enjoy thinking about this. What you'll need to understand is I've done the math and the tests. The work I am doing is based on empirical evidence which is quantum theory. Until something is observed we can not know what it is. Relativity allows for predicting a phenomena before observing such as light bending more than matter when passing near the Sun. This is because Einstein believed that light was propagated by something (aether). And with light, it interacts equally with space and time. That suggests energy because it's not interacting with gravity. Matter interacts with gravity. Why they have 2 different paths when passing near the Sun. This has been written about for almost 100 years. The distinction I made between relativity and quantum theory goes to a discussion Einstein had with I believe it was Niels Bohr. And this gets into the atmospheric chemistry that I've been pursuing. And Bessler's Wheel will help me to have a life. Oh dear. I'm not a doctor but your last two posts look to me very much like "word salad", in its medical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad I suggest you seek psychiatric help, if you are not already getting it. And I'm now out of this discussion.
Ghideon Posted April 10, 2022 Posted April 10, 2022 13 hours ago, JamesL said: The best thing I can tell you is when I am finished and it works, the scientists and engineers at Utrecht University could decide for themselves. I'm sorry to say but I can't understand what you try to explain, your post does not clarify anything regarding my questions. 14 hours ago, JamesL said: Basically I can be open minded while still considering the laws of physics and how they can actually be applied. Do you have an open mind for the possibility that you have misinterpreted the established laws of physics? If so, this forum is a good place to post questions and ask for help! Physics has come a long way since Newton (and Bessler), are you for instance familiar with Noether's theorem?
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, exchemist said: Oh dear. I'm not a doctor but your last two posts look to me very much like "word salad", in its medical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad I suggest you seek psychiatric help, if you are not already getting it. And I'm now out of this discussion. You seriously don't understand what Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein talked about? To use simple words, Bohr said that until you observed something, you couldn't say what it is. The basis of quantum theory. And yet Einstein said how much more light would bend when passing near the Sun. Since that hadn't been observed, Einstein couldn't know that because of a lack of observation. What Einstein knew was that the gravitational forces exerted by the planets will cause Mercury’s perihelion to advance by about 43 arcs seconds more per century than what Newton's theory of gravity predicted. And now you see, an observation had been made but Niels Bohr ignored it. After all, what would the orbits of the planets around the Sun have to do with light from a distant star passing by the Sun on its way through our solar system? And why it is said that gravity is a force yet has no energy is because it can't produce meaningful work. Can it be conserved in a system other than the Moon orbiting the Earth which has no net gain? This gets into word salad. If Bessler's Wheel works and converts gravity into mechanical energy, let's say used to generate 1,000 watts of power. Is there a net gain? There isn't. This is because the Earth's kinetic energy plus Bessler's Wheel kinetic energy and what it produces would still have the same value within the Earth's gravitational field. Basically the definition of energy in this sense would be generating power that is not associated with the Earth's gravitational field. Think petrol or gasoline.. And this is where if Bessler's Wheel works and generates energy above what is required for it to rotate then it will be considered as a gravity powered engine. Most people don't understand what the argument is actually based on. Just for fun, any energy produced by a perpetual motion machine would produce heat which then would become of the Earth's kinetic energy once again. It would never leave the system that it came from. Thus no net gain, no energy created. 46 minutes ago, Ghideon said: I'm sorry to say but I can't understand what you try to explain, your post does not clarify anything regarding my questions. Do you have an open mind for the possibility that you have misinterpreted the established laws of physics? If so, this forum is a good place to post questions and ask for help! Physics has come a long way since Newton (and Bessler), are you for instance familiar with Noether's theorem? If Bessler's Wheel works, then as a disabled Veteran I'll probably move to another country. No one understood why I wanted to pursue an education and a life in the U.S. One reason why I am pursuing an experiment to demonstrate how CO2 and CH4 support ozone recovery is so Americans might allow me to have a life in the U.S. I was originally pursuing that research to promote better carbon capture because I live in Kentucky. So much for trying to find a way to get along with "real" Americans. Kentuckians don't understand how such science could help them. I was just wasting my time. And yet you're not familiar with how those 2 gases support ozone recovery yet I should be concerned about something other than research that I've been pursuing? And you guys can help to distract me from that? But as you said, you only consider what's known and won't consider what you don't know. How do you expect science to advance? Just not what you're interested in. You've made that clear and I Thank You for that. p.s., ever since I was Honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy, I have heard one thing from Americans, we'll screw you. You will learn whatever we do is good and if you complain, we might make it worse. And you guys being unwilling to ask about math because it's not what you've spent time working on seems to me to be more of the same. It simply is not a discussion if the math a theory is based on and has been demonstrated is ignored because of opinion. Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) To have some fun with you guys, what the American Christian said, we must look at the written word. What does it tell us? You've been saying the same thing. Of course with Einstein's quote; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/276428-einstein-was-once-asked-how-many-feet-are-in-a If I am successful then you'll know who I am. I will be the guy who read a biography of Einstein at 13 and found it interesting that his father owned a dyno factory and at 17 he wondered what propagated the motion of light. After all, dynos generate electricity but where does it come from? After all, it's motion is propagated by the rotating armature and it's being ground in some location that uses electricity. How bizarre. p.s., American Christians want to know where it is written in their book. It is not written in the "book" to pursue surgery you need. They say I don't need it because doctors say I don't need it. And this is where I'll offer Spain my science experiment for surgery I want. And possibly being able to create jobs won't matter because if I am not allowed to pursue my own life. They might consider because I overcame what "real" Americans that I might know something. And if my science experiment is successful then one day you'll probably be reading about my work which isn't in your book....yet. Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL -3
Ghideon Posted April 10, 2022 Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, JamesL said: But as you said, you only consider what's known and won't consider what you don't know. I did not intend to say that at all*. 2 hours ago, JamesL said: How do you expect science to advance? Example from my area of work; I would for instance try to improve resilience in an IT architecture by starting from a geo redundant and diversified cloud based infrastructure. Not by using a (non-working) copy of Carles Babbage's difference engine. Or, in the context of this thread: I would start from contemporary science instead of a 300 year old device that was considered a fraud**. 2 hours ago, JamesL said: And you guys being unwilling to ask about math because it's not what you've spent time working on seems to me to be more of the same. It simply is not a discussion if the math a theory is based on and has been demonstrated is ignored because of opinion. I asked if you are familiar with Noethers theorem, it is connected to the mathematics of classical mechanics and laws of conservation and hence Newtonian mechanics, forces and perpetual motion. *) Also I (have to) approach to my area of profession by trying to learn new things and adopt to them continuously; in computer science and engineering there's progress all the time. Standing still, relying only on current knowledge is not a suitable approach. (Not in computer science and also not in life in general) **)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p Edited April 10, 2022 by Ghideon added a missing "not"
Ghideon Posted April 10, 2022 Posted April 10, 2022 Let's try another approach for this discussion: Assume for a while that the wheel works*; meaning, as far as I can tell from the descriptions, that once the wheel is started it continues to rotate without any source of power, but there has to be gravity. Per your idea, are the following statements true? "Yes" or "no" for each question will be enough for now. 1: The wheel will periodically return to the same configuration where all parts are at the same position as at some time before, for instance once for every 360 degrees of rotation. 2: The wheel will slow down and stop if there is no gravity, for instance if the wheel is in free fall or taken far from any source of gravity. 3: In gravity greater than earth gravity the wheel will speed up. *) It does not matter at this time how it is supposed to work, that may be covered later. This is just to improve the discussion and allow for further analysis.
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ghideon said: I did not intend to say that at all*. Example from my area of work; I would for instance try to improve resilience in an IT architecture by starting from a geo redundant and diversified cloud based infrastructure. Not by using a (non-working) copy of Carles Babbage's difference engine. Or, in the context of this thread: I would start from contemporary science instead of a 300 year old device that was considered a fraud**. I asked if you are familiar with Noethers theorem, it is connected to the mathematics of classical mechanics and laws of conservation and hence Newtonian mechanics, forces and perpetual motion. *) Also I (have to) approach to my area of profession by trying to learn new things and adopt to them continuously; in computer science and engineering there's progress all the time. Standing still, relying only on current knowledge is not a suitable approach. (Not in computer science and also not in life in general) **)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.p What Bessler realized is a unique principle. As the wheel rotates, where the retraction line intersects the retraction disc, it remains at a 90º to the axle of the wheel. The 2 pulleys that guide the retraction line cancel each other out. If the line pulls 1 pulley in the opposite direction the wheel is rotating, the other pulley is pushing the wheel. The weight goes straight up the arm so it is not resisting rotation of the wheel. The length of the retraction line does not change. The arm it is on literally rotates out from underneath the weight wheel. I have tested this and have found it does work that way. As for atmospheric chemistry, I was hoping a scientist would try the experiment Then they would have been a scientist working with an amateur scientist. Astronomers will work with amateur astronomers. I think the problem might be that with atmospheric chemistry, it is actually Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics. That field does not exist. What Bessler's Wheel will do is allow me to discuss conservation of momentum and how the laws of thermodynamics does allow for momentum to dictate the flow of energy. Everyone always say heat while conservation of momentum will allow for an equilibrium to be sought. I am aware that science allows for that. And when combined with astrophysics, it can offer a hypothesis that will explain what the IPCC has observed but does not understand. And a lot of this will get into the work of early scientists going back into the 1800's. With that said, I am aware of other discoveries in the early 1900's and modern research associated with those discoveries. And with my situation, Bessler's Wheel might suggest that I know enough about mechanics and conservation of energy to build a better wind turbine. With atmospheric chemistry, I kind of got stuck with it. I'll give you an example of how this happened. After examining the possible reasons for the model-measurement discrepancy, we conclude that there are probably one or more additional unknown sources of CH2O in the North Atlantic troposphere. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896 The quote I posted along with what the IPCC has made known in its observations as well is why I consider what Occam's Razor allows for. And the simple explanation allows for more complexity. Astrophysics and conservation of momentum would allow for another source of CH2O. And the reason for this is that neither the halogen or photolytic processes allows for a solution. Most people don't find CH2O very interesting. And yet it might be a very important atmospheric gas. And in total seriousness, there really is a limited interest in atmospheric chemistry. Many of the scientists will have degrees in organic chemistry. How to say it simply isn't that simple? And to not limit science to a specific field, what prevents the troposphere and the stratosphere from interacting with each other? It's called the Marine Boundary Layer. And yet that allows for jet streams which determine weather patterns. This helps to show how astrophysics affects our atmosphere. And there is no place online to discuss this. It's just not a field of science at the moment while there are fields of science that will discuss different aspects of it. Basically if I show what the IPCC does not understand, then when I say we need to consider astrophysics, do you think anyone will listen? And there are some simple/basic experiments that will either prove or disprove what I'm pursuing. Could you imagine saying that? One experiment to show the IPCC that there is a process that allows for their observations? The sequence can be shown and verified by observation. Then when observing gasses occurring at the expense of other gasses, it won't matter without a hypothesis. I've shown you the work of different scientists. They simply don't understand what the other is doing. And astrophysics is the only thing that links the troposphere to the stratosphere. Needless to say, I find this frustrating. And an FYI, your attitude surprised me which is why I posted this and shared some more information with you. If I wasn't a disabled Veteran, I would've had a family and never would've had the time to read scientific research papers or become more involved in math. p.s., OMC is the Otay Millionaires Club. The Otay are indigenous peoples of New Zealand. What is missing is why anvil clouds form; https://windy.app/textbook/how-anvil-clouds-form-simple-explanation.html Does it really look like strong winds are shaping that anvil cloud with it's uniform flat top? Science says it does. Astrophysics offers another explanation if you allow for the harmonics observed in mechanical engineering. This has to do with mass and rotation velocity. That's almost an inverted wave if you ever watching surfing movies. Basically the surface of the water is the top of the anvil cloud. Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 (edited) yep, a cloud is not an inverted wave. It's so obvious. Just some boring garbage. Kind of why science sucks. https://www.academia.edu/30457249/Are_CH2O_measurements_in_the_marine_boundary_layer_suitable_for_testing_the_current_understanding_of_CH4_photooxidation_A_model_study?email_work_card=reading-history Edited April 10, 2022 by JamesL
JamesL Posted April 10, 2022 Author Posted April 10, 2022 Since swansont doesn't like me, only people raised by "real" Americans are right. As he said, if he doesn't know it, I'm stupid. And yet Portland, orgeon voted the owner of nude bars to be its mayor. The guy actually only owned 2. Yet as swansont told me, I am limited by what he knows in this forum. And he banned me because what I was pursuing in atmospheric chemistry did not support his understanding of science because he was limited to atomic physics. Isolating exhaust gasses when burning fossil fuels has what to do with atomic physics? And he gets green dots for saying "I'm building a better bomb". Kind of what atomic physics is about. And yet he is liked. And if I want a life in the US as a disabled Veteran, he disapproves. This is funny but if I leave the U.S., he and those who support him will be one reason why. I was to be obedient like I lived in Russia under Putin. Yet I can't have an opinion because swonsant said NO!. So anymore in this forum, simply ask swonsant what he says. What I am limited to saying. for swonsant; https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2001/01/researchers-now-able-to-stop-restart-light/ swonsant, what happens when nuclei stop rotating? You're an atomic physicist with a PhD in it. Can light really be stopped? I wanted to discuss carbon capture and you banned me for it. So lets discuss stopping light itself. Will it collapse into itself? If so, then like a nuclear bomb that becomes out of phase with itself, will it detonate? That's what atomic physics is about, right? And it's not about how exhaust gasses can be cooled and separated because of global warming, etc., right? An FYI people. Nuclear bombs use unstable isotopes. When compressed and possibly by firing neutrons into their nucleus, a reaction occurs. With Chernobyl, the fuel rods were removed to quickly. As a result the atomic forces became internal and increased their activity. Basically the fuel rods became an isolated system which did not interact with the surrounding material. Kind of why the core meltdown. swansont can explain this to you. Slowly pulling the fuel rods would've allowed for a decrease between the fuel rod and the surrounding material. That wasn't known then but became known. Yet discussing carbon capture needs to be of a discussion that did not prevent a nuclear meltdown. Hopefully you guys know this stuff. firing neutrons might just be the result of an unstable isotope "firing". How to pursue an equilibrium according to the laws of thermodynamics? Get rid of what's in the nuclei that makes it unstable. It's like banning people in a forum. Literally it's the same thing.
pzkpfw Posted April 11, 2022 Posted April 11, 2022 3 hours ago, JamesL said: ... p.s., OMC is the Otay Millionaires Club. The Otay are indigenous peoples of New Zealand. ... No x 2. The indigenous people of New Zealand are the Maori. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori The "O" in "OMC" is from "Otara". This is a low-income area of Auckland, our biggest city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMC_(band)
Recommended Posts