[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Since I am not able to post an external link then I can't ask a question. The only answer I would receive would be an opinion and that's not very scientific.
 But I can go with stupid. I have to ask, do these numbers have any meaning? I can't say I discovered something but have to ask someone if they can find meaning in work I've done. I find that insulting. Since it is information not found in a textbook I cannot say I know this. Forum rules require me to ask what this is or means when I'll say I discovered something.
 Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^2.007 = 0.0067 bars
 Yet because it's not in a textbook the obvious relationship has to be ignored. And if my perpetual motion machine works, then it was invented in 1712 but would have to say it can't work today because someone said it's impossible. And that would be the same person who said that there is no relationship between the atmospheric pressure of Venus, Earth and Mars.
 Are you aware that both Newton and Einstein missed something? It's rather obvious like the math I posted. My question is why has this relationship between 3 rock type planets with atmospheres been missed?
 If my Bessler's Wheel build works as the prototype suggests then scientists will have missed it is possible, powered flight is possible and the relationship between the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. Samuel Langley proved powered flight wasn't possible and he was America's foremost scientist. It's okay though. I was held back in school in the U.S. (am from Dayton, Ohio) because I had a Norwegian accent. I don't think people should be discouraged from doing something.
 I mention this because it will become well known that I've been attacked for over a decade because a scientist said that gravity has no energy so perpetual motion (conservation of the Earth's gravitational energy) is impossible. I accept what Einstein said and astronomers have supported.
 I have asked an astronomer to work with me on something. They have my notes, etc. to consider.

[Bored chemist]

do these numbers have any meaning?

Not as far as I can tell.

if my perpetual motion machine works

It won't.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Search this;
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
Chapter 5 Scientific Summary

 Then scroll down to where it says "Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4)".
I am pursuing an experiment to explain that. While it should be the IPCC's job or someone else who
researches atmospheric chemistry, apparently I am the only who understood what it suggests.
 And a working Bessler's Wheel will allow me to pursue my experiment.
 Don't take this personally. This is how I remind myself why I'm tolerating what I'm going through. And with what the IPCC doesn't understand, it basically allows for a new field in science. If you noticed, I mentioned astrophysics (relative atmospheric pressures) and also atmospheric chemistry and physics
(atmospheric forcings allowing for recovery of the ozone layer).

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 With this;
 Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^2.007 = 0.0067 bars

2.007 should've been squared so it is 4.03 like this;
 Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^4.03 = 0.0067 bars
 so the math is 100% correct. The global moderator did not realize the difference between
the orbit of Venus and Mars. The 2.007 value is within the perigee and apogee of Mars' relationship
to Venus's orbit. A little problem solving would've allowed for my mistake to have been realized
because the atmospheric pressure of Mars is about 6 millibars.
 While this is rather basic, the Earth is about 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus. The inverse
square law is used and 1.38^2 = 1.91. The same is done for Mars. The further a planet is away from
the Sun the less the Sun can influence it.
 Yet it is easier to ridicule someone rather than consider they forgot to factor one value in an equation properly. This is like when I read NOAA's report on ozone depletion. When I saw their quote about the IPCC's report, I realized that a process would allow for a common source. Yet neither photolytics or the halogen process allows for a common source.
 If they did, someone would've written a paper about it and would have made it known. This hasn't happened yet. It's kind of like considering atmospheric pressures having a mathematical relationship. We all have seen how that went and it didn't go well for me.

[Kryptid]

Conservation of energy, and many of the other conservation laws, are in a somewhat unique position in physics in that they are supported by a mathematical proof called Noether's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Theorems, such as the Pythagorean theorem, are proofs that hold so long as their initial axioms hold. In the case of Noether's theorem, conservation laws are guaranteed to hold so long as certain symmetries in nature hold. In the case of energy, that symmetry is time symmetry. Unfortunately, I don't have a good grasp on exactly what all that means, but mathematicians seem to understand how it guarantees conservation of energy.

The only exception I can think of is the metric expansion of the Universe. As best as I understand it, that represents a violation of time symmetry because it means space now isn't the same as space later (it's larger at a later time). As such, light red-shifts as the Universe expands and that energy is just lost. However, perpetual motion machines (such as the type you speak of) don't involve manipulation of space-time in any way. As such, we know that Noether's theorem would apply to them and so they cannot violate conservation of energy.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 As far as perpetual motion goes, on YouTube, search James Lindgaard. That is my channel.
You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º. I am now building a display model.
I am not allowed to post a link to my work which shows that momentum can be conserved.
 

[Kryptid]

You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º.

You mean this?

What you show in the video is a long way off from perpetual motion. Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.

[Bored chemist]

The global moderator did not realize the difference between the orbit of Venus and Mars.

You can not expect the moderators to read minds.

There are other planets in the solar system.
Does your observation also work for them?
If not, then what you have discovered is a coincidence.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I can't read minds either. I am hoping an astronomer at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln will be interested. I've made her aware of what I think. I'd like to give her a chance to think about it.
 The math I showed would support that all planets are influenced proportionally. I actually looked for that relationship to see if gravity or other attribute associated with the Sun allowed for it.

p.s., the wheel rotated over 90º. The display model is designed to repeat that process. That concept
can get complicated because it uses a "2nd wheel". The basic idea is that leverage is converted into torque. To get a little "funny"; Newton's First Law of Motion;
 every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

 The disc which is not a part of the wheel does not allow for symmetrical behavior. And I think it is a
"trick" piece of engineering. And Gottfried Leibniz was a witness of Bessler's. And I think that was in court when Bessler was tried as a fraud and was found innocent.
 A guy published  a paper at Cornell University about it. It was known in German language publications but not outside of a German speaking region.
 If you search Cornell University and this "The mechanical career of Councillor Orffyreus, confidence man"
or Johann Bessler. And then you can see what other papers the author published. The person is Jenkins, A.

[Origin]

 I can't read minds either. I am hoping an astronomer at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln will be interested. I've made her aware of what I think. I'd like to give her a chance to think about it.

I don't think she will be interested.
Where did the number 0.9062 come from?
By the way no where are you using the inverse square law, that would involve 1/x^2 not x^2.
Did you exclude Mercury and Jupiter because they do not fit with your equation?

This is basically just numerology without any physics.

[Origin]

You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º.

A 90 degree rotation sure ain't perpetual motion...

[JLindgaard (OP)]

  "A 90 degree rotation sure ain't perpetual motion..."

 Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work. Kind of why I am building a display model as I mentioned.
 And the experiment that I'm pursuing. One of the reasons for pursuing Bessler's Wheel.
https://climate-cycling.com/?page_id=33

 Possibly why I should stay offline while I work. Between Bessler's Wheel and my experiment, science doesn't allow for either one. And yet it's okay if scientists don't understand why 3 GHGs are helping the ozone layer to recover. With climate change, that should be made known so that a solution can be considered. But when the IPCC says "For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases."
 https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
Scroll down to CO2, N2O and CH4 and you'll find the section.
 

[Kryptid]

p.s., the wheel rotated over 90º. The display model is designed to repeat that process. That concept
can get complicated because it uses a "2nd wheel". The basic idea is that leverage is converted into torque. To get a little "funny"; Newton's First Law of Motion;
 every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

I predict that it will not work (because of Noether's theorem). Do feel free to post a video of it working when you get it finished, though.

Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^4.03 = 0.0067 bars
 so the math is 100% correct.

As distances from the Sun increase, the exponent will increase as well. This means that your equation predicts thinner and thinner atmospheres for planets as you get further from the Sun. However, the gas giants have thicker atmospheres than Mars, so it doesn't work for them. It also doesn't work for Venus itself:

93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1
93.079 bars * (0.0938)^1
93.079 bars * 0.0938
= 8.731 bars

Mercury, with an even smaller exponent, would be predicted by your equation to have a thicker atmosphere than its (already incorrect) prediction for Venus. But Mercury's atmospheric pressure is far, far less than 8.731 bars. So the fact that your equation works for just two planets and fails for the rest of them strongly suggests that it is a coincidence.

A 90º shows that it can work

It doesn't, actually. It's easy enough to build a wheel that will turn only 90 degrees by mounting a weight on one side. What your wheel has to do in order to actually qualify for perpetual motion is to keep that going over and over again without end and without external energy input. Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Just a quick question. Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?
I have taken time to consider things but then I am primarily about my atmospheric chemistry experiment.
I think that is actually what matters.

[Origin]

Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work.

Nope, not even close.

Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?

Could be, what is absolutely clear however is that your equation doesn't work.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I'm going to take it easy and enjoy my work. If I am in the position to say that the IPCC did not make it known about
GHGs role in the recovery of the ozone layer, that would change the climate change debate. The preservation of the ozone layer has not been a part of that discussion.

[Bored chemist]

 Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work.

A rock falling over moves through 90 degrees, but nobody would claim that it's a perpetual motion machine.

More importantly, you are missing the fact that perpetual motion machines are impossible. We have the maths to prove it.
You should, at least, stop pretending that you are doing science.
You should probably also stop wasting your time.

I am primarily about my atmospheric chemistry

The atmospheres of the planets are made from different materials.
Prior to the evolution of photosynthetic life on Earth the atmosphere would have contained much more CO2 and no O2 so it would have been denser. We are currently changing it too.
So, the density you are calculating from is set pretty arbitrarily by life

[Kryptid]

Just a quick question. Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?

Venus is hotter than Mercury and still has an atmosphere.

The reason most likely has to do with its low gravity and the strong solar wind that would blow an atmosphere off over time.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 The reply I received from the astronomer I have been in contact with.
Rebecca Harbison
   
Mon, Aug 29, 9:04 PM (14 hours ago)
   
to me
Just a heads up.  The term just started here, so going through emails is going to be slow for things not work related.  So if I don't respond, it's because I had to get to my students first.

-----------------------------
"I may have sent this e-mail outside of my normal working hours. I never expect an answer outside of yours."

Dr. Rebecca Harbison

  I made her aware of your concerns regarding Mercury. She will need to confer with her colleagues. Since she is an astronomer then she will be aware of the references I made. And this includes Einstein's 1915 paper on general relativity and how astronomers verified Einstein's hypothesis.
 What does that mean exactly? We are discussing science, right? And since she and her colleagues are astronomers,
it would be best for them to consider things first before I say anything more. It would be rude on my part to ask her to consider something and then for me to go and discuss it with other people.
 With atmospheric pressures having what I believe to be a relationship I would say impacts the experiment that I am pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. This is where I need to be patient and finish my build. Then I can pursue my own work.

[Bored chemist]

Before you discuss it with someone who is clearly busy, you should answer the points made by those of us with time on our hands.