The Road to Perpetual Motion

[hansvonlieven]

Sorry Gentlemen,

There isn't much to tell at the moment. The control mechanism is designed, I am still trying to simplify it a bit more, but more or less it's ready. We are sourcing the parts needed to build the whole thing so construction should begin in about a week or so.

I'll keep you informed.

Hans von Lieven

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

I have been rather busy with my research into the fundamental principles of perpetual motion. Here is part 1 of my latest set of thoughts and experiments.

Part 2 should be ready shortly.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

Why Overunity and therefore Perpetual Motion is possible.

Part 1

In an effort to track down Besslerââ,¬â,,¢s ââ,¬Å"motus perpetualisââ,¬Â, which I translated as principle of perpetual motion, because that is what Bessler meant when he used the term, I came across what I dubbed the ââ,¬Å"recoil effectââ,¬Â.

I reasoned that it was possible to separate under certain conditions action from equal and opposite reaction, and that one of these forces could be turned around and fed back into the system providing additional energy over and above the energy input.

My paper so far dealt with this phenomenon as a key element in a proposed design of a perpetual motion machine.

I reasoned further that, if my theory held true, it would apply across the spectrum and not just be confined to guns, rocket engines and so forth.

We talk about conservation of energy. This so called law forbids the existence of a perpetual motion machine that can do work.

The theory was formalised by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) in his seminal paper ââ,¬Å"Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraftââ,¬Â (Concerning the conservation of force).

Now Helmholtz was no idiot, quite the opposite. He was one of the most eminent scientists of his time. His discoveries were fundamental in many fields of science and are still in all the textbooks. To my knowledge he was never proved wrong. Helmholtz certainly knew what energy was, so why didnââ,¬â,,¢t he use this term? Why did he call it conservation of force?

This is where science made a fundamental error. By substituting the word energy for force they missed much of what Helmholtz was saying because the two are not the same.

Take a simple example:

We have a ten kg weight lying on the ground. No potential energy there. We now lift the weight and place it on top of a post, say one meter high. Now we have potential energy. It only needs a small push and we can liberate it. The potential energy turns into kinetic energy as the weight falls until it hits the ground. That energy is the exact equivalent to the energy we had to expend to lift the weight to that height.

CoE proved    QED

But is that all there is?

No, it is not!

Our ten kg weight exerts a downward pressure on the ground as well as on the post when it is stationary. This pressure is still there after the weight has fallen off the post and all the potential energy is spent. Nevertheless it is a real force though there is no energy available.

There is one paragraph in Helmholtzââ,¬â,,¢ paper that was taken out by science and is no longer taught. In that paragraph Helmholtz shows the possibility of perpetual motion. To my knowledge Helmholtz never published the reason why he said: Force can be gained and lost ad infinitum.

He would not have said it lightly though, since it appears to contradict the entirety of his paper. But it only does so if you equate energy with force. If you make a distinction between the two terms there is no contradiction.

Helmholtz was no theoretical physicist. He arrived at his results mainly through experimentation and observation. So just where did he observe the gaining and losing of force ad infinitum?

This has puzzled me for many years.

I finally found the proof to what he was saying in the simplest machine there is, the pendulum. We have actually known about it all along but its significance has escaped us because we equate force with energy.

So what is so special about a pendulum?

Let us observe its action. Say, we have a pendulum and we lift the pendulum bob to point  A.

Since the pendulum bob cannot go lower than point C because of the string, the vertical distance between point A and point C is the potential energy we have at our disposal, governed by gravity. If we now let go of the pendulum bob it will descend along the arc governed by the string and is propelled by gravity to point C. It accelerates as it is doing so. After it passes point C it is now adversely affected by gravity decelerating as it approaches point B at which time the momentum is exhausted and it will reverse.

In an ideal system (i.e. No friction, air resistance and any other force) point A and point B are on the same horizontal level. The potential energy at point B is exactly the same as it was at point A and the pendulum will oscillate forever.

This is conservation of energy in its simplest form, so science tells us.

Wrong!

The moment we let go of the pendulum bob we have converted potential energy into force. In other words we are observing conservation of force. It is important to remember this.

But is that all that happens?

No, it is not!

As a result of the movement centripetal and its equal and opposite centrifugal force develop with the square of velocity.

In rough and ready terms at velocity one the centripetal force is one, at velocity two it becomes four, at velocity three it becomes nine and so forth. This is well known.

These forces appear seemingly out of nowhere, since they do not consume any of the input energy but they are real nevertheless as the increasing tautness of the string shows. These forces develop independently and have no effect on the action of the pendulum whatsoever.

From the point of release, when centripetal and centrifugal force are zero, their strength increases as the bob increases in velocity and decreases accordingly on the upswing until the bob arrives at point B where after a short stop, at which time they become zero  again, the pendulum reverses, the cycle starts afresh and the forces reassert themselves all over.

Force gained and lost ad infinitum, just as Helmholtz said !!!!!

As every Olympic hammer thrower knows this additional energy can be used to do work. For this to happen there has to be a separation of systems..

This was my line of thought up to that point. What now needed to be done was to set up a simple and easily repeatable experiment that proved the validity of my statements. Part 2 shows the experiments where I tested just that. WM2D simulations of my experiments are attached.

Hans von Lieven

[utilitarian]

These forces appear seemingly out of nowhere, since they do not consume any of the input energy but they are real nevertheless as the increasing tautness of the string shows. These forces develop independently and have no effect on the action of the pendulum whatsoever.

From the point of release, when centripetal and centrifugal force are zero, their strength increases as the bob increases in velocity and decreases accordingly on the upswing until the bob arrives at point B where after a short stop, at which time they become zero  again, the pendulum reverses, the cycle starts afresh and the forces reassert themselves all over.

I am not sure what you mean by the forces appearing out of nowhere.  The forces are a result of gravity.  The only reason the bob had any potential energy when lifted to its height is due to gravity, and that is the clear source of the other forces. 

The exponential increase in the centripetal force with time is no surprise, since the strength of a force is essentially defined as the rate of acceleration of an object under the influence of such a force.

[hansvonlieven]

The exponential increase in the centripetal force with time is no surprise, since the strength of a force is essentially defined as the rate of acceleration of an object under the influence of such a force.

Correct, but they do not consume any of the potential energy. That is why science goes to extreme lengths to obscure the fact that they come from somewhere they cannot determine. They get around it by saying "Centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement deduced from an observed trajectory, not a kinetic force like gravity or electrical forces." Source wikipedia, centripetal force.

Hans von Lieven

[Marctwo]

@Hans:  Why would you post this in the middle of another thread???  I see you've also posted this in the middle of another thread at besslerwheel.com...  Do you have a problem starting new threads?

You seem to be drawing some very naive conclusions from the simple effects of enertia.  I'd say more wishful thinking than viable theory...

But I'll reserve a full opinion until you've posted the full series in it's own dedicated thread.