Bharat Rakshak

LokeshC and yayavar: one book I read recently (well a couple of years back ) is "the clockwork universe" which traces the history of the royal society which was started by Charles II who ascended the throne after Cromwell was hanged. Very interesting insights into what kind of superstition even the so called great scientists - you would recognize each of them even today whose names are in high school physics, chemistry, biology text books - were steeped in at that time.

LokeshC: good thoughts. I recall making a study of medieval armour in high school - it was all amament/knights and how it led to various designs.
Dont think it is exactly OT - as machines are physics concepts but will move it to OT after this.

I find similar advances in India too. A simple example is old rectangular walls given to more spherical design to resist iron balls - but Indian castles seem to always have been built that way; and Indians had armor of steel mesh long back (Puru vs Sikandar). So there was machinery and scientific development - maybe the documentation is locked in some Sanskrit texts either lost or forgotten (and maybe found in some budhist monastry in Tibet/central asia).

matrimc: I recall reading that in description of classical physics and the conflicts and dissonance the newer discoveries caused. But then I've met highly qualified and innovative engineers in workplace who believe in 'Intelligent Design'.

Few comments ..

I have read some books of Bhaskara's (Surya siddhant - सूर्य सिद्धांत etc). I have enough knowledge of Sanskrit and interest in Math and its history to read some in original and some in translations etc. My perspective about "Bhaskar's wheel" later but first a few comments about the "machines" shown there.

- This (Bhaskara's wheel - and many similar machines, including Boyle's self-flowing glass will not work) does not have much to do with second law of thermodynamics... (or entropy). It is simply the first law or energy can not be created from nothing. (These are perpetual machines of the "first kind" which can be shown to be nonsensical with simple math/physics only).

Thus, for example, Bhaskara's wheel type are there to fool people who are not very careful to do simple geometry stuff, or in other words, forget some not so obvious part in geometry/mechanics to be fooled. The situation is very similar to phony math proofs where one "proves" 1=2.

For example we used to "show" how to convert 1 p into 1 Rs (R= Rupee), p=paisa)
1 p = .01 R
= (.1 R)*(.1 R)
= (10 p) (10 p)
= 100 p
= 1 R
Voila, you have 1p = 1Rs , so you convert 1p into 1Rs and you can make money without working...

- The fallacy in Bhaskara's wheel type is not much more complex than finding the error in above argument... And Bhaskara certainly knew enough geometry to see fallacy in "Bhaskara's wheel type" machines.

===
Bhaskaa's main focus was math (trigonometry, geometry, algebra, some calculus etc).
There is some physics.. (In terms of building devices to experimentally measure astronomical data - BTW I like one of his quote/sloka which he tells his students that depending on "sastras" or "authorities" for data which ought to be measured experimentally or proved mathematically is a sign of a stupid person)

Analysis shows that this wont work -- but the question being put is if it was proposed to show it wont work or was it considered as if it will work? All the Arabic and Europeans certainly tried to replicate and further a perpetual motion machine based on it. Did they not inherit the 'knowledge' along with the design? Is there is no further reference in India - if so, it is an indication that it was considered futile. Would be good to know if it was categorically stated as such.

The second question put was if there are known mechanical innovations from India from ancient and medieval periods. We see a lot of reference to ancient Chinese and Greek, or medieval European innovations.

AmberG: Thanks for that quote from Bhaskara. I did not know about that before I suggested to johneeG the experimental route of actually building the machine and see if it works instead of arguing that it would work. It is not a such a complex machine to construct unless one believes in secret ingredients as in Alchemy (in which Mercury occupies a special place, IIRC).

As for johneeG's point about wheels being found in Mahabharata, of course, it is par for the course - wheel is one of those old inventions almost equal in importance to discovery of fire or development of language. They might have found the principle of inertia and were using them as fly wheels to store energy - just a plausibility. Nobody can be sure about these things which are lost in the mists of time.

matrimc, AmberG: But the thing is that people built these and found them not working and continued to create more similar ones. So experimental failure did not dissuade the European seekers of perpetual motion. So my curiosity is limited to knowing if Indians understood the futility (irrespective of whether Bhaskara did) or there was in general lack of mechanical devices. My knowledge is very limited since the texts I find are very strongly 'western'. (fyi..I've had some arguments with friends of mine who insert 'western science' when science would suffice and is the right use ).

yayavar: (what does that mean, BTW? Yes Yes whatever? yet another yet another varia{tion,ble))

johneeG seems to have retired from the innings - hopefully not hurt. There is a simple thought experiment whic I would pose as an adversarial argument here for him to consider.

I have built the machine as described in the diagram purportedly from bhAskara gaNita (?). I am about to mount the wheel onto the axle. I would like to know what to expect just after I mount the wheel. Is it going to spin madly and keep on spinning till I forcefully stop it (can I even do it?) or is it just going to sit there doing nothing? If it the latter, do I need to give it a push? Clockwise or counter clockwise? How big a push? Small nudge, medium amount of push, or really have a go at it with all the force I can muster? What happens after the push? Let us say I rig up an electric battery operated drill to give the initial start to the wheel and in doing so exhausted the battery on the drill. Would I be able to recharge it from the machine since it is going to keep on spinning forever.

matrimc: One more try then ...

The medieval Europeans (and some folk even now) say - yeah, that didnt work, there must be some other tweak that is required. The only reference from India seems to be the Bhaskara's wheel -- so am curious if there were Indians involved in this futile exercise? Is that because they understood that this was futile and understtood the physics; or was there in general a lack of interest in things mechanical? I dont see any reference to Indian machines - irrespective of those built for the elusive 'perpetual motion' - in general and it is hard to believe that there were none.

yayavar: please see the video posted by murugan on dholavira. the city biulders seem to have had good understanding of hydraulics. this was pre 2500 BCE. MB took place - following the timeline of the western indologists - ca 1500 bce. they had all kinds of chariots and irin bows and maces of all shapes. dont think they could have fought such a big war involving at least a lac of soldiers without some am9unt of mechanization. the only way to know would be to learn sanskrit and see if one can find references. johneeg tantalizingly said something about big wheel like structures in MB. may be he can give the chapter numbers from gangly's english version. i have no knowledge.

yes, there is lot of inference we can draw from lots of places - even in middle ages (weapons, buildings/monuments, instruments and tools etc.). Was just curious about some tangible known evidence from middle ages. Will look more and share if I find.

Nothing here!

Gurus: can you recommend Any good course or books on Lagrangian mechanics that covers vibrations of strings and travelling waves?

Trying to understand a simulation (mooring related)

Not that I know anything about theoretical physics but supposedly Michio Kaku has written few books on string theory. He's also some kind of celebrity physicists appearing on radio shows and such.

For newbie/amateur/crackpot/hobby physicists (including moi), this is a great great resource. This course is run by God (aka Susskind) himself

http://theoreticalminimum.com/

A number of years ago I became aware of the large number of physics enthusiasts out there who have no venue to learn modern physics and cosmology. Fat advanced textbooks are not suitable to people who have no teacher to ask questions of, and the popular literature does not go deeply enough to satisfy these curious people. So I started a series of courses on modern physics at Stanford University where I am a professor of physics. The courses are specifically aimed at people who know, or once knew, a bit of algebra and calculus, but are more or less beginners.

I understood most of GR and SR using this resource. I still cannot handle Reimannian mathematics of vector fields, but I "believe" I have a good grasp of things because of the theoretical minimum series.

LokeshC: What is mooring related? Are you looking for theory of structural beams that can take only tension loads but not compression loads (i.e. ropes, strings, etc.)?

I came across one online resource called "Continuum Mechanics" which I will post once I get to the device on which I have the link open.

johneeG wrote:

Amber G. wrote: JohneeG, from what I know, in all probability, Bhaskara used this example to illustrate silliness ( impossibility) of such machines. They may be good enough to fool those who are not good at math (or are not careful to find obvious mistakes in arguments). One can not construct such machines in practice to useful work and that is not too hard to understand.

Did Bhaskara clearly stated that he was attempting to illustrate the impossibility of making such machines? If not, its just your opinion based on speculation. Anyway, how can one prove the impossibility of making perpetual motion machine? If one design does not work, one can always claim that a better design will work.

I think you (not Bhasakara) missed a basic logic: one cannot prove the non-existence conclusively. Non-existence is an assumption when existence is not perceived by the seer.

Existence can be positively proved by direct observation. Non-existence (I.e impossibility) cannot be conclusively proved.

So, your idea that impossibility can be proved is itself silly.

So, I am going to assume that Bhaskara actually tried to build a working perpetual motion machine. The fact that this design was copied by many other cultures shows that this design was seen as very good. Further, Bhaskara may have been inspired from ancient work on such machines. Mahabharatha mentions huge wheels being setup when a new city was established by Yuddhishtira. What are these wheels for? It doesn't mention.

This Bhaskara wheel might be useful in generating electricity.

csaurabh wrote:
Wtf is this? Impossibility is real. 2+2 = 5 is impossible. In mathematics ( unlike sciences ), proofs of possibility or impossibility are absolute.

Physically going beyond the speed of light is impossible according to the current knowledge. If a different picture of the universe arises, then perhaps we can go beyond that barrier, but until then, it is still impossible.

Perpetual motion machines are just silly. The wheel mechanisms were devised by con artists as a scam in various parts of Europe in 18th-19th centuries. No need to think much about this.

saar,
I think Maths is like a software and brain is like a hardware. Or maybe Mind is the operating system and Maths is a software program. The idea is that the Maths is an abstract system which is useful when it is mapped to physical world. But, Maths can also be delinked from the physical world and be used just as an intellectual exercise. But, such an exercise would be mostly useless for real world applications.

When you say that 2+2 can't be 5, you have to first define 2, + and 5.
For example, if you said that 2 apples + 2 apples cannot be 5 apples. It could be true in some circumstances. However, in some other circumstances, it might not be true. For example, if the scenario is that X offers 1 free apple whenever 4 apples are bought, then 2 apples + 2 apples will be 5 apples in that particular scenario.

Similarly, 2 human beings + 2 human beings can be 5 human beings if 2 of them marry and have a child.

So, maths is useful only when it is mapped to a particular circumstance and considers all factors. It is like a software program which can give you correct estimates provided you input correct factors. However, most of the time, all factors may or may not be known correctly before hand. So, mathematical models are not a replacement for the real world experiments(or experiences) because all the factors are generally not known in precise manner.

Perpetual motion machines are generally based on a very simple concept:
the world has many natural forces all around us which make the world function. The perpetual motion machines try to harness these natural forces.

Normal machines try to imitate the natural forces. Perpetual motion machines try to directly use the natural forces. For example, Bhaskara wheel is trying to use gravity. There is a force of gravity experienced by all objects on earth. Can this force be harnessed(i.e. can gravity be converted to other forms of energy)? That is the basic idea.

I don't see why it is silly.

matrimc wrote:JohneeG: A very simple scientific thing to do.

Build one with the help of bhAskarAchAryA's drawings. Right down your setup in excruciating detail so that others can reproduce it just from the description. At this point know how is good enough. Once a large number of people reproduce the results independently, the search for know why can start.

First observation of phenomenology, next controlled experimentation and description of the setup and independent verification and then comes how to harness and control.

Yep, thats the right thing to do. I don't know if I am up to it. But, I guess never say never.

yayavar wrote:Adding to above... from what I can find Bhaskara actually thought that this machine would run on its own; and this gave rise to the frenzy in Europe for perpetual motion machines. Did not find any reference indicating that Bhaskara thought the machine was impossible or that he considered perpetual motion machines an impossibility. (All this through Google chacha so the eventual source could be one person's interpretation)

Saar,
could you provide some link. Also please share further gyaan for the benefit of likes of me. Please...

LokeshC wrote:johnee garu,

One thing I "believe in" (as there is no real proof of it) is the second law of thermodynamics, and also the law of conservation of energy. You can think of entropy as an "inverse of energy content". If you design a system that goes from one state to another with zero loss of energy, you have "something" that is perpetually moving. The moment it starts leaking energy (i.e. entropy increase) you end up losing whatever energy there is in the system. And you know it will start leaking energy when you try to extract it for whatever "work" you are planning to do with it. The useful energy soon goes to zero (max entropy state), and then your machine stops or breaks down. There is no miracle here, no silliness. The math is surprisingly simple and easy to follow.

Here is something interesting I discovered while I was trying to understand Relativity and Thermodynamics:
The fact that entropy decrease is never possible in a closed system is one of a very fundamental nature. You can take any equation that describes the physical process and reverse time in it and you will get a mathematically and physically valid situation. The only way that we know that time is "increasing" is that entropy keeps increasing as time increases. This is why I believe that time-travel backwards is not possible (not proved yet, so my conjecture). The reason is when you travel "backward" in time, you are going into a "hotter" universe than the one you are currently in. You are traveling from a state of high entropy to a state of low entropy, and that I am conjecturing is impossible. There must be a conjecture that closed-time-like curves (CTCs) are impossible in Quantum-Gravity. I am sure someone would have thought of that by now.

Somehow there exists a deep link between time and entropy increase. For example: What it tells me is that there is no part in the universe that a process will be running backward in time according to its physical description. Which means, every particle, every atom, every "body" (including a black hole and a particle of light) must have its entropy increasing. The rate of increase maybe local, but the phenomenon of entropy increase is global. Global and local as defined by relativity. Near a blackhole time would pass much more slowly than outside. All it means is the process of entropic decay is slower near that region, but it IS happening and at some point of time in the far far future from our reference frame, that black hole will attain its maximum entropy state (which according to Hawking results in a particle that is of Planck Mass after a few million-billion-trillion years). Remember Max Entropy: Max decay, lowest possible energy.

In a non-Quantum Mechanical world, there is nothing called "free-energy", although there are all sort of crazy "scientists" running around trying to figure out free-energy, time travel etc. "free-energy" comes from the fact that Quantum Mechanics and relativity combine in a narrow sense and create this mathematical convinience of particles appearing and disappearing simultaneously. This is due to fluctuations of the field and a field = particle in QM. There is no way anyone is going to extract it and use it.

Saar,
I have always had a problem, just recently realized it. I can't initially understand an abstract idea without first connecting it to some (known) physical(i.e. real world) object/phenomenon. Once I understand an idea, then I don't need this connection crutch.

I haven't been able to understand what an entropy is and how it is connected to energy. I vaguely gather that entropy is connected to sequence. But, I don't understand how it is connected to heat.

And since I don't understand that, I haven't been able to understand your post properly.

Broadly, you seem to be making an assumption that the increase in heat must be the main factor for sequence(i.e. the sequence can't reversed because heat has increased). Since the heat increases in all atoms of the universe, the sequence can't be reversed.

This raises many questions:
a) why is heat increasing? What is the source of this energy? If the energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where is the heat coming from? or are you saying that energy is being created? Then how is the energy is being created?
b) If the heat is increasing and is the basis for the sequence(i.e. entropy), then why can't the heat be reduced and sequence be reversed? Are you suggesting that if I cool down an object, its sequence will be reversed? If I cool down a human being, will he become younger?

SriKumar wrote:LokeshC mian,
please go ahead with your explanations for JohneeG's comments on perpetual motion machine. But I suspect this may be your first engagement with JohneeG
So, just to give you some idea of what might lie in store.....JohneeG sahab is sceptical about some theories of rocket propulsion..... (JohneeG bhraata, kshamyataam, kshamyamtaam. I do not want to re-start this debate )

Disclaimer: It is possible JohneeG has changed his mind on this, in which case I stand corrected.
But, I have to say I do owe JohneeG garu one..... Thanks to a question he raised about a post of mine (again, physics thread), I was able to nominally and marginally correct my stance barely in time as the resident adhyaapak came by, admonished the ignorance at display and clarifed the point
(minor edits made...this thread was in GD forum for prior discussions and brought outside recently...).

Yes, saar.
I think rockets run by pushing against the air. I haven't changed my mind. I don't mind changing my mind really. But, haven't come across something that convinces me to change my mind on this subject(after I started believing that rockets can't run in vacuum).

I'd have replied to you in Sanskruth, but my Sanskruth is pretty weak.

^ Intresting to see you write it as Sanskruth; OT here but is the 'matra' pronounced as 'ru' or 'ri' ; so is it Prithvi or Pruthvi ?

LokeshC wrote:Gurus: can you recommend Any good course or books on Lagrangian mechanics that covers vibrations of strings and travelling waves?

Trying to understand a simulation (mooring related)

Classical Physics: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/122106027/

Special Topics in Classical Mechanics: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/115106068/

chakra wrote:

LokeshC wrote:Gurus: can you recommend Any good course or books on Lagrangian mechanics that covers vibrations of strings and travelling waves?

Trying to understand a simulation (mooring related)

Classical Physics: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/122106027/

Special Topics in Classical Mechanics: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/115106068/

Classical Mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUFtLCrU90

Engineering Dynamics: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-e ... fall-2011/

LokeshC wrote:Gurus: can you recommend Any good course or books on Lagrangian mechanics that covers vibrations of strings and travelling waves?

Trying to understand a simulation (mooring related)

Books:

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=la ... column=def

negi wrote:^ Intresting to see you write it as Sanskruth; OT here but is the 'matra' pronounced as 'ru' or 'ri' ; so is it Prithvi or Pruthvi ?

In telugu there is are four vowels Ru , (and its long form) RU, Lu, and LU. These letters (and some others) are slowly but surely being "disappeared". My observation is that it is the influence of people from AP who lived in the Madras state. These are sizable in number in the coastal AP nd might be doing it unconsciously as they role models were movie actors/actresses of bygone Tollywood which was based in what was Madras. This phenomenon is very similar to and possibly even have genesis in the simplification of tamiz language to rid of any "brahminical", "aryan", "northie" influences. After all, a large part of current day AP was part of the Madras state during British Raj times. They look up to English and UK just like TG people look up to Iran, Urdu, Saudi Arabia, and even Pakistan.

LokeshC:

Continuum Mechanics Online book

Not sure what level you are looking for and what level this book is. For me (I am not an ME but have some need to understand some parts of the subject) seems to be OK.

We had an intern who was working on the effect of waves on a new type of mooring device. He left the place quite abruptly and I wanted to understand how far along he got with and who in my team has the required skill to take it further. Also because of interest in his techniques. I am not a mechanical eng so I could not quite understand what lagragian and its density meant.

I did find a few resources from another physics forum. I will look into what you and chakra have posted.

Thanks

Vibration of strings at least finding the displacement of a vibrating string is taught in 2nd year Btech course as part of applied mathematics ; iirc we used 1 dimensional partial differential equation for that , again for most of us it was pretty dense back then because things were just touched upon instead of going through less topics in depth.

This is close to what they teach in India or at least was taught in our time.

http://math.seu.edu.cn/CourseFiles/2012 ... 457334.pdf

negi wrote:^ Intresting to see you write it as Sanskruth; OT here but is the 'matra' pronounced as 'ru' or 'ri' ; so is it Prithvi or Pruthvi ?

negi saar,
as far as I know, its pronounced as 'ru' in Sanskruth, Hindhi and Thelugu. But, generally, it is written as 'ri' in English. Earlier, it used to be written as 'r'(without 'u' or 'i') in english.

So, earlier, it used to be written as krpa, prtvi, brhaspati, ...etc in English.
These days, it is written as Kripa, pritvi, brihaspati, ...etc in English.

I think it is pronounced as Krupa, Pruthvi, Bruhaspathi, ...etc in Sanskruth and other Bhaarathiya languages.

JohneeG, and others --

There is some talk about sanskrit so JohneeG, if you understand Sanskrit, may I recommend you to read Bhaskara's books ( particularly suryasiddhant).

Also, he talks about importance of math, simple, straight forward, the kind where two+two is four!.. This is how he builds up the whole treatise about planetary motion. Power of such math is that one can predict things (like planetary position) which can be verified instead of endless philosophizing about what is "really two plus two".


***

Coming to "bhaskara's wheel"..
JohneeG..

As someone suggested,
Why don't you build one such wheel?.

You yourself said, " The simplicity of the idea is excellent." so building it should be no problem. If you can make the wheel spin, produce electricity.
It is as simple as that!!!

(And just make a few millions of these wheels, there are plenty of raw materials)

Solve world's energy problem.
(why worry about arguing with us in this forum, when you can reach a much higher goal)
***
(Just curious, what are your thoughts about the proof of Rs 1 = 1 np given above )
***
All - I for one, do not doubt at all that Bhaskara knew the math about the wheel. He was an excellent mathematician. It would have been child's play for him to calculate center of gravity etc. He could have presented the problem as a challenge to his students to see how smart the students are.

(No one who knows even the most elementary math/science, will be fooled ... there is no perpetual motion in that wheel)
***
Okay looking at Bhaskara's wheel, assuming that this problem was given as a problem to his students-
Can you use simple logic to predict how the wheel will behave? (I would like to see the solution without using calculus.. simpler the better)

The original Bhaskara's wheel looks like this: (Black part mercury)


But let me simplify and assume this is like (see below - assume each curved part is semicircle):


(red part is mercury liquid - how will the wheel behave?- Can you show simple math to support your conclusion)

PS - (Added later - One can use old fashioned Newton's Method, or Lagrangian to solve the above problem )

Amber G. wrote:JohneeG, and others --

There is some talk about sanskrit so JohneeG, if you understand Sanskrit, may I recommend you to read Bhaskara's books ( particularly suryasiddhant).

Saar,
my sanskruth is very weak and it is particularly weak in technical words. So, I don't think I would be able to plod through the whole works. But, if you can point to a specific portion(small and specific), then I might be able to manage.

I was actually curious to know which work mentions the Bhaskara wheel. If you know, please tell.

Also, he talks about importance of math, simple, straight forward, the kind where two+two is four!.. This is how he builds up the whole treatise about planetary motion. Power of such math is that one can predict things (like planetary position) which can be verified instead of endless philosophizing about what is "really two plus two".

***

Please point to a specific portion for the benefit of likes of me.

Coming to "bhaskara's wheel"..
JohneeG..

As someone suggested,
Why don't you build one such wheel?.

You yourself said, " The simplicity of the idea is excellent." so building it should be no problem. If you can make the wheel spin, produce electricity.
It is as simple as that!!!

Yep, the first thing would be to go the source. So, if you could point out the source material where Bhaskara wheel is mentioned, that would be helpful. If you can give exact Sanskruth quotes and also its translation that would be great.

(And just make a few millions of these wheels, there are plenty of raw materials)

Solve world's energy problem.
(why worry about arguing with us in this forum, when you can reach a much higher goal)
***

My initial impressions are that it would require some precision engineering(OK, not such good precision engineering but atleast some kind of good engineering to make it work). I am not sure whether homemade equipment would be enough.

As for the millions:
if the millions are really involved, then do you think those who stand to lose out their millions due to such inventions will keep quiet?

(Just curious, what are your thoughts about the proof of Rs 1 = 1 np given above )

Nice, saar. This is actually one of my weaknesses: Units.

1 p = .01 R
= (.1 R)*(.1 R) ( R square is not equal to p)
= (10 p) (10 p)
= 100 p
= 1 R

***
All - I for one, do not doubt at all that Bhaskara knew the math about the wheel. He was an excellent mathematician. It would have been child's play for him to calculate center of gravity etc. He could have presented the problem as a challenge to his students to see how smart the students are.

(No one who knows even the most elementary math/science, will be fooled ... there is no perpetual motion in that wheel)
***

Saar,
its your belief that Bhaskara also thought wheel won't work and you can believe whatever you want. However, if you could point out why the wheel won't work according to you, it would be helpful. Also, if you can provide some thing to back up that Bhaskara actually believed the wheel won't work, then it would be helpful.

I think you are making one fundamental wrong assumption. The beliefs of modern times are same as the beliefs of the Bhaskara's time(or beliefs of Bhaskara). The beliefs of modern day physics or beliefs of modern day Maths may or not be shared by Bhaskara and his contemporaries.

Anyway, Bhaskara II seems to have built up his work on the work of his predecessors.(Like all others do). So, it is not as if Bhaskara is coming up with his own ideas. Some of the ideas may be his own. But, he largely builds on his predecessors' work. The same would be true about Bhaskara wheel.

Thats why I mentioned one source which predates Bhaskara: Mahabhaaratha. Mahabhaaratha also mentions wheels(other than chariot wheels). They can be interpreted as perpetual motion wheels. So, the idea predates Bhaskara. I think Bhaskara built on the previous knowledge. In a way, he was passing on the old knowledge with some additions and deletions.

Okay looking at Bhaskara's wheel, assuming that this problem was given as a problem to his students-
Can you use simple logic to predict how the wheel will behave? (I would like to see the solution without using calculus.. simpler the better)

The original Bhaskara's wheel looks like this: (Black part mercury)


But let me simplify and assume this is like (see below - assume each curved part is semicircle):


(red part is mercury liquid - how will the wheel behave?- Can you show simple math to support your conclusion)

PS - (Added later - One can use old fashioned Newton's Method, or Lagrangian to solve the above problem )

hmm... I never quite understood calculus. (I didn't even try because I disliked it so much)

Anyway, it seems to me that the Bhaskara's wheel is very different from the simplified version that you posted. The difference seems to me that the Bhaskara's wheel is designed to put greater torque on one side of the wheel all the time.

I'll try to convey my understanding in simple manner:
I have put numbers on the spokes of the wheel to better convey my point:


There are 8 spokes on the wheel numbered from 1 to 8. There is a rim on which the torque(i.e angular force acts). There is an axle at the centre of the wheel which is the centre of gravity. The force on the axle will not produce any movement in the wheel. The force at the rim will produce movement.

The whole thing seems to be based on torque.

Torque is the angular force.

WHAT IS TORQUE?
Torque is a measure of how much a force acting on an object causes that object to rotate. The object rotates about an axis, which we will call the pivot point, and will label 'O'. We will call the force 'F'. The distance from the pivot point to the point where the force acts is called the moment arm, and is denoted by 'r'. Note that this distance, 'r', is also a vector, and points from the axis of rotation to the point where the force acts. (Refer to Figure 1 for a pictoral representation of these definitions.)



Torque is defined as

= r x F = r F sin().

In other words, torque is the cross product between the distance vector (the distance from the pivot point to the point where force is applied) and the force vector, 'a' being the angle between r and F.

Using the right hand rule, we can find the direction of the torque vector. If we put our fingers in the direction of r, and curl them to the direction of F, then the thumb points in the direction of the torque vector.

Imagine pushing a door to open it. The force of your push (F) causes the door to rotate about its hinges (the pivot point, O). How hard you need to push depends on the distance you are from the hinges (r) (and several other things, but let's ignore them now). The closer you are to the hinges (i.e. the smaller r is), the harder it is to push. This is what happens when you try to push open a door on the wrong side. The torque you created on the door is smaller than it would have been had you pushed the correct side (away from its hinges).

Note that the force applied, F, and the moment arm, r, are independent of the object. Furthermore, a force applied at the pivot point will cause no torque since the moment arm would be zero (r = 0).

Link

So, the spokes 8, 1, and 2 will not experience much torque. The mercury(or any liquid) in these spokes is near the axle. Because there will be less torque. Because the distance between the liquid and the centre of gravity(axle) would be less and therefore the torque would be less.

The spokes 4,5, and 6 will not experience much torque because the force(Gravity) has approx 0 degrees to the radius.
The formula for Torque is Torque = r*F*Sin(theta).
Theta is the angle between r and F.
Here, r is the radius of the wheel. And F is the force of gravity which is acting downwards.

In spokes 4, 5, and 6 the torque will be less because Sin 0 is 0. So, Torque = r*F*0 = 0.
So, in spoke 5, Torque will be 0.

In spokes 7 and 3, the gravity force makes an angle of 90 degrees with the radius of the wheel. Sin 90 is 1.(1 is the maximum value that a sine angle can get). So, the maximum torque will be in either spoke 7 or 3. These are the spokes that will decide whether there will be motion in the wheel or not.

In Spoke 7, the liquid is spread out. Considerable amount of the liquid is near the axle(and hence less torque because of less radius). Very little liquid is near the rim.

In Spoke 3, most of the liquid is near the rim. And therefore this spoke will experience maximum torque. So, the wheel will move because of the torque in spoke 3.

The torque experienced by other spokes is less or negligent.

Your simplified version seems to be completely different.

Duplicate

JohneeG,

First - you may enjoy some introductory part in Surya-siddhanta.. where one discusses what is "scientific method".

As to my " simplified version seems to be completely different" -- no need to worry, just forget it. (I put it only because it seemed a little easy to work with, but you seem to have no problem doing "torque analysis" on the original wheel)

Now, as you said, after considerable analysis that:

So, the wheel will move because of the torque in spoke 3.

You must have faith in your own logic.

So, I think you need not wait.
(There is no need to " go to the source." or you need " exact Sanskruth quotes" etc, since you already analyzed it, it should work, the design is simple)

You should go ahead,

(One of the quote in in Bhaskara's writing is, "clever people do not need veda's to understand logic or inner-gyan)

Why even waste time debating, just make the wheel, as you yourself said, it is quite simple and you yourself , after calculating all the torques, determined that it will work.

If you know it is simple, and it will work, and will solve our energy problem, then not working on it is sin.

Don't you agree?

JohneeG wrote:Thats why I mentioned one source which predates Bhaskara: Mahabhaaratha. Mahabhaaratha also mentions wheels(other than chariot wheels). They can be interpreted as perpetual motion wheels. So, the idea predates Bhaskara. I think Bhaskara built on the previous knowledge. In a way, he was passing on the old knowledge with some additions and deletions.

I think, you are right, I found this in old ancient text.
It's called Rahu-Ketu chakra
Picture is self-explanatory.

(It is inspired by your torque logic .. Just like your #3 has more torque than #7 (9 in this picture, and we do know 9>6)9 has maximum torque)

I think this is much simpler perpetual machine.



(Translated from original sanskrutum - "But obviously, since 9 is greater than 6, the side with the 9s is heaver, and this wheel will turn"

Amber G. wrote:JohneeG,

First - you may enjoy some introductory part in Surya-siddhanta.. where one discusses what is "scientific method".

Surya Siddhantha seems to be divided into 3 parts. I could not find any 'introductory part'.

Now, as you said, after considerable analysis that:

So, the wheel will move because of the torque in spoke 3.

You must have faith in your own logic.

So, I think you need not wait.
(There is no need to " go to the source." or you need " exact Sanskruth quotes" etc, since you already analyzed it, it should work, the design is simple)

You should go ahead,

Regardless, I think it would be nice to see what the Bhaskara actually said rather than depend on second-hand sources.

(One of the quote in in Bhaskara's writing is, "clever people do not need veda's to understand logic or inner-gyan)

You have mentioned this several times. Please, give some reference if possible.

Why even waste time debating, just make the wheel, as you yourself said, it is quite simple and you yourself , after calculating all the torques, determined that it will work.

If you know it is simple, and it will work, and will solve our energy problem, then not working on it is sin.

Don't you agree?

I think it requires some engineering. I don't think I have the resources for such engineering right now. Atleast a 3-D printer would be required to make a small scale one. I don't have a 3-D printer right now.

But, I think I'll try it at some point.

Anyway, I think you are missing the larger point. There are several energies and forces in the nature which can be tapped. The energies and forces are abundant and there is no dearth. The problem is to store energy for long periods. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any good way to store energy for long periods. Battery and inductor seem to be two methods which can work on very small scale for short periods.

But, there seems to be no way to store energy for longer periods in bigger scale. This is the real problem.

So, I think it would be worthwhile if human beings can find a better ways to store energy. That would be very useful and revolutionary.

Amber G. wrote:

JohneeG wrote:Thats why I mentioned one source which predates Bhaskara: Mahabhaaratha. Mahabhaaratha also mentions wheels(other than chariot wheels). They can be interpreted as perpetual motion wheels. So, the idea predates Bhaskara. I think Bhaskara built on the previous knowledge. In a way, he was passing on the old knowledge with some additions and deletions.

I think, you are right, I found this in old ancient text.
It's called Rahu-Ketu chakra
Picture is self-explanatory.

(It is inspired by your torque logic .. Just like your #3 has more torque than #7 (9 in this picture, and we do know 9>6)9 has maximum torque)

I think this is much simpler perpetual machine.



(Translated from original sanskrutum - "But obviously, since 9 is greater than 6, the side with the 9s is heaver, and this wheel will turn"

It seems that you get very riled up whenever such topics come up. And you frequently post strawman posts.

When I posted something about water being used as fuel, you posted about deuterium.

my post on Water-fuelled car

Your post on fraud about deuterium fuelled car

See, if you think water can't fuel a car. Then, you should address that point instead of talking about deuterium.

When I raise possibility of perpetual motion wheel, you talk about 1 r being equal to 1p or some made up silly drawings.

If you think that that perpetual motion wheel is not possible then fine. But, you have not given any reason. You have not pointed out any flaw in what I said. You just make all kinds of posts trying to ridicule without addressing the point. If I am wrong, please go ahead and point out my wrongs. I don't mind being wrong. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected.

LokeshC wrote:yayavar:

This is OT, I dont know the appropriate thread for it. I will xpost if I find one.

I have been looking at reasons why Europe advanced suddenly out of the "medieval times". The reason is based in violence, scarcity and necessity, and also being at the right place at the right time. Most of Europe developed war machines (torturing devices, weapons etc), and had knowledge on construction of advanced machinery for the purpose of war.

This was a lucky accident, as it was a left over push from the Greko-Roman Bryzantine era (in which Europeans were r-a-p-e-d). These empires were built on expansionist philosophy. This is also the root of the "love" that many western folks have about the Greeks. The other thing is Bryzantine empire protected Europe from Islamic onslaught, it was a buffer zone. The left over Roman Jews/Christians/Pagans fighting against their more violent cousins.

Bryzantine empire was in the "right place at the right time for Europe", i.e. they were doing crusades at that time which meant they will murder every malsi follower on their way to Jerusalem. Crusades played an important role in the development of long distance maritime trade and shipping.

Now in the process, the Bryzantine folks did something amazing (and IMO this is where we indics lost out) they collected knowledge from the Middle east, which was collecting knowledge from India and elsewhere. They also started collecting knowledge from Central Asia and "old"-Europe. Bryzantines are known to have preserved and respected the old European civilizations. But as "colonizers" of Europe, they changed the elites of Europe with various favors (just like our Macaulayites of today).

Bryzantine empire thus became a knowledge center, an archive of ancient knowledge and also collected large number of students and artists in the process. By the time Bryzantine empire fell to the Ottomans, they were already weak compared to the European center that was developing in the west. Europe thus inherited the scientists and the artists and it became a "melting pot" of the ideas that came from as far away as India and China. Europe also inherited the Bryzantine war machine, Greko-Roman realpolitik and intelligence gathering structure which was perfected by the Bryzantines. Euopeans were also buffered and protected from Malsis in their most weakest moments by the Bryzantine empire.

Europe is also far colder than the Mediterranean. Which means Europe was more inclined to develop clustered and isolated population, i.e. Cities. Innovations that can support more people will result in more people coming together (if you know what I mean). Urbanization also creates an idea market that can never be beaten in villages. European elites were fascinated with new "knowledge" and sponsored scientists and artists to study them. This went on until Rome became supreme again (through the Vatican) and Europe fell into their "dark ages" for about 800 years.

Renaissance pulled them out of it and they started to recover old Bryzantine/Greek/Roman knowledge and build on it. By this time, India was still largely rural and was never "plugged in" to the enormous churn that was going on in Europe. We had excellent knowledge centers, but we never had the need to "explore, integrate and innovate". If we had a Bryzantine invasion or had been a war obsessed knowledge gathering center, we might have been an extremely powerful entity by now. Whether Indic philosophies would have survived it or not is another question.

We were self-absorbed, just like much of Europe and the west is today. Then came the Islamic barbarian onslaught and the fall of the India. The rest, as you know is history .

BTW: I do not know of knowledge flow "INTO" India anywhere in History, if anyone knows about it please make me aware of it.

Saar,
It seems you start with a basic question:
why did the europe develop weapons and machines while Bhaarath did not?

But, you ignore one point:
Even islamic hordes developed better weapons than Bhaarath during middle-ages. For example, canons.

However, there is an irony. Bhaarath was better developed in theory and both the islamics and europeans continued to beg, borrow and steal theoretical concepts from Bhaarath. On the other hand, Bhaarath did not develop the practical applications(particularly weaponization) which was the main purpose of the europeans and islamics.

Any theoretical concept gained by the europeans and islamics from Bhaarath was promptly put to weaponization. Why didn't Bhaarath do the same? This is the real question.

Infact, there is a simpler question: forget cannons and artillery. What happened to chariots when the islamics attacked Bhaarath? Why didn't Bhaarathiyas employ chariots?

johneeG wrote: Bji,
it seems to me that Buddhism acted like a parasite. It would weaken the host(state). That may explain why India in Buddhist period was rich and powerful, but very pacifist. Interestingly, X-ism behaves in the same manner in the initial phases(i.e. during roman period and even subsequent dark ages), until they come in contact with jihadis. It seem X-ism was influenced by jihadi model to create colonial model.

You have hinted in the past that during Buddhist period, many war-sciences were discouraged and access to such knowledge may have controlled through viharas and universities(under Buddhist control).

Now, Sudarshan saar asked a very relevant question:

johneeG wrote:
----
Sudarshan saar,
your query led me to an interesting points:

quote:
Guns and Cannons in Ancient India during the Vedic and Mahabharata Period
Details about guns used in ancient India are found in Shukra Niti. About weapons used in Vedic age are found in Atharva Veda. Information regarding cannons are found in Vana Parva of Mahabharata and also in Naishadham text of Sriharsha. The name given by ancient Indians to cannon was Shatagni.

Shatagni had the capacity to kill nearly 100 soldiers of the enemies. Puranas also give information about Shatagni.

Shatagni was a large gun which used to fire iron balls fitted with spikes. Shatagni gun was mounted on a vehicle which had eight wheels. This was far more superior to the first versions of modern cannons.

Guns were known as Bhushundi in ancient India. Small guns were known as Lagu Naliyam and those with bigger holes were known as Briha Naliyam.

There are archeological evidences that bullets were made using various metals in ancient India.

Treatise dealing with various weapons used in ancient India is found in Dhanur Veda. It mentions about machine operated weapons.

Link to original post

sudarshan wrote:
Hmm. What happened to all this yudh vidya in later times? Like when the Greeks came a'calling? For that matter, what happened to all the divya astras from Ramayana/MB times? Anu-shakti would have made mincemeat of the Greek/Mohameddan/European invaders, naa?

Sudarshan saar,
I am not saying that anu-shakti(or atom bomb) existed at that time. I don't believe in that theory. But, there may have been powerful weapons like cannons, mechanical semi-automatic bows that release several arrows at a time, some kind of bombs, and even guns.

What happened to such knowledge?
I think, it may have been lost during Buddhist period. Not just these high-profile ones, but even the regular warfare sciences like archery and chariots seem to have suffered. Even cavalry sciences may have suffered to an extent.

I mean, where are the chariots when the muslims were attacking? They mention elephants, but there is no mention of chariots(as far as I know).

So, my guess is that during buddhist period, desh lost the knowledge of war-sciences. Bji, please give your opinion on this.

Link to post

So, what seems to have happened is that the practical applications(particularly war applications) were curbed by the Buddhism(this would apply to christianity as well until the time of crusades).

The theoretical knowledge survived in Bhaarath during Buddhist period. Even here, many knowledge may have been kept under the watch of viharas or temples. After the Mauryan Empire and Shathavahana empire, the Buddhist influence may have lingered on for some more time. As the Buddhism was on wane in Bhaarath, it seems that Cheen was seen as a new home. It seems slowly Buddhists shifted the base from Bhaarath to Cheen and Tibet and many books/knowledge was carried to Cheen at this time from Bhaarath.

This may have also been the time, when the knowledge of gun powder and rockets were taken to Cheen from Bhaarath via Karnataka-Andhra-Kalinga-Vangal-Tibet-Cheen and Kashmir-Tibet-Cheen and Kerala-TN-Japan-Cheen.

It seems the sea-routes to the west were cut-off. It seems that the Arabics had taken over the sea-routes to the west by this time. So, the concentration seems to have been focused on east and north particularly Cheen and Japan.

Cheen started the trend of weaponization of the theoretical knowledge. Eventually, this passed on to the Islamics. From Islamics, this knowledge passed on to the europe(via Spain). Then, the europe also followed the same trend. At that time, europe imitated the islamics(particularly the turks).

It can even be speculated that some factions in middle-east gave this knowledge to europe to undermine the dominant islamic faction during crusades.

By the end of crusades, europe had gained some basic weaponization, but they were still dirt poor and weak. After crusades, europe went to America(searching for Bhaarath). In America, they encountered stiff resistance from the natives(despite the difference in weapons). The europeans were lucky that the native americans were destroyed by the plague(which was being carried by the europe from a long a time). The plague destroyed the original Americans leaving the field open for the european colonization of America. Europe was already quite brutal in their methods and attitudes as they were shaped by christian dark ages.

So, native americans were brutally enslaved and looted. This gave europe a good head-start to come out of their christian dark ages. It gave them easy labour and lot of gold. This allowed the europe to crawl out of dark ages by perpetuating brutal colonialism on native americans.

Once europe experienced this, they turned it into a formula and have been following this colonialism method ever since. After world war 2, direct colonialism ended.

Indirect coercive systems have been put in place. Even then, the mask slips once in a while.

On the other hand, once the islamics gained control of Bhaarath, they settled down in Bhaarath and tried to disarm Bhaarath. So, Bhaarath continued to lag behind in practical applications. Islamic rule of Bhaarath resulted in largescale warfare and frequent famines. The same trend continued during european colonization.

Just as islamics declined after they lost control of Bhaarath, similarly europeans seem to be on decline after they lost control of Bhaarath. So, its the same trend.

Bhaarath still has the theoretical concepts, the challenge is to turn them into practical applications.

I just happened to stumble on this.The solution to this "perpetual motion" thing has been elegantly explained in "Physics for entertainment" by Ya Perleman- an old classic from Mir Publishers- one of the best and entertaining set of books I have ever read and then I went into medicine

prasannasimha wrote:... and then I went into medicine

Welcome to this dhaga. (And I dare say that understanding of why perpetual machines will not work is more to do with medicine (or how human mind works) than physics..)

According to search results, it seems that I have talked about Majorana Fermion a few times here in brf.
last post was in 2012 here ..

Here is a recent news story:
Physicists Observe New Particle That's Also Its Own 'Antiparticle'

and http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch ... n=facstaff

After decades of searching, physicists at Princeton University say they've observed an elusive particle that behaves both like matter and antimatter.

Yes, the discovery is an exciting step forward for particle physics, but it may also help advance the creation of powerful quantum computers.

In the early 20th century, as quantum theory emerged, scientists predicted that most common particles, like electrons, had mysterious "antimatter" counterparts with the same mass and opposite charge. Scientists even thought that if a particle came in contact with its "antiparticle," the two would annihilate one another.

Italian physicist Ettore Majorana first hypothesized in 1937 that one particle -- called the "Majorana fermion" -- could serve as its very own antimatter particle, and scientists have been searching for that particle ever since.
<clip>

prasannasimha wrote:I just happened to stumble on this.The solution to this "perpetual motion" thing has been elegantly explained in "Physics for entertainment" by Ya Perleman- an old classic from Mir Publishers- one of the best and entertaining set of books I have ever read and then I went into medicine

Saar,
I just glossed over it. I found two points about perpetual motion wheels:
a) he generally deals with wheels having balls inside them. He does not mention wheels having liquids inside them. If he had atleast dealt with wheels having several small balls in each spoke, it would be more interesting.
b) For perpetual motion to happen in a wheel, the torque on the one side(say right side) has to be consistently more than the other side(say left side). His only objection to perpetual motion wheels seems to be that at some point the wheel will be in such a position where torque on one side(right side) will not be consistently more than the other side(say left side). This seems like a silly objection. Anyway, the Bhaskara wheel which is being discussed in this thread seems to be able to consistently maintain more torque on one side(right side) than the other side(left side). If this is the only objection being raised, then I think perpetual motion wheels are certainly possible.

Also the shrill tone of that book against perpetual motion wheels sounds like reading koran or bible. They also have the same shrill tone when they are advocating something which is based on faith.

Joneeg if you think that the Bhaskara wheel works - it doesn't.Be it with liquid or solid balls.If it did work the energy crisis in the world would be over.You feel it is a shrill tone - Frankly I did not think so.

Shrill tone is not acceptable, but post after post of utter nonsense is acceptable as the new standards of BRF even in this thread. There are plenty of other threads for indulging in non-sickular thoughts....but

prasannasimha wrote:I just happened to stumble on this.The solution to this "perpetual motion" thing has been elegantly explained in "Physics for entertainment" by Ya Perleman- an old classic from Mir Publishers- one of the best and entertaining set of books I have ever read

Thanks for reference of Perleman's book. I have to check it out. Y. Perleman is not related to the famous mathematician (field medalist) Grigori Perelman (his father was different Yakov) but G. Perelman said that Physics for Entertainment, which his father bought for him, inspired his interest in mathematics.

I also have a copy too.

By the way johneeG: You never answered my question about what would happen if I build the machine and am ready to mounting the wheel assembly onto the axle?

The machine would work only the planet mercury since mercury is mentioned in the diagram? (just pulling your leg now - don't take it too seriously).

From MIT News, may be of interest to some -

Crumpled graphene could provide an unconventional energy storage
Fast, cheap nanomanufacturing
Murray to receive National Medal of Technology and Innovation