Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[AgingYoung]

Much like a graph of y=1/x approaching an asymptote of y=0, you will never get there and will surely never pass it.
... ad nauseam ...

A physicist and a mathematician were in a room with a beautiful woman and were told that they could take as many steps as was needed to decrease the distance between her and them by half, yet never more than that. The mathematician left the room crying and muddling, 'I'll never get to her.'

The physicist smiled and was asked why he was so happy because he would never reach the beautiful woman. He replied, 'for all practical purposes it's close enough.'

Gene

ps:

(nobody will stop you from wasting your time)

That's comforting to know. Besides I'm too busy wasting my time to have to stop and open up a case of 'whipass'.

 

[Ririon]

Ririon,
The mass on a moment arm has a weight that produces torque. To balance the arm in the moment it stops I'd need 50% of the weight at 90 degrees or 100% of the weight at 30 degrees. To cause it to move all the way to 360 or zero degrees I'd need an average of about 26% of the total weight at 90 degrees. That's what I was trying to say.

I'm working on the other 30 degrees now. Maybe I need more cornstarch.

Gene

First of all, that doesn't make any sense, since we don't know how your machine looks.

Secondly, it doesn't make any sense, period.

Thirdly, If you take a wheel of about the same weight as your machine, with a weight fixed on it off-center, and with the same hub bearings as in your machine. How many degrees would it rotate from TDC? About the same, you say? In fact it ends up with slightly MORE potential energy than your machine you say? Can you figure out why I am not surprised?

 

[Ririon]

A physicist and a mathematician were in a room with a beautiful woman and were told that they could take as many steps as was needed to decrease the distance between her and them by half, yet never more than that. The mathematician left the room crying and muddling, 'I'll never get to her.'

The physicist smiled and was asked why he was so happy because he would never reach the beautiful woman. He replied, 'for all practical purposes it's close enough.'

Gene

...

I am a physicist...

 

[AgingYoung]

Thirdly, If you take a wheel of about the same weight as your machine, with a weight fixed on it off-center, and with the same hub bearings as in your machine. How many degrees would it rotate from TDC? About the same, you say? In fact it ends up with slightly MORE potential energy than your machine you say? Can you figure out why I am not surprised?

Ririon,

Actually that's the case. It seems I've taken a perfectly good flywheel and ruined its efficiency. I can also see your point about not having the details of what this machine looks like. That's a fine point. There's no way to come to much of a conclusion based on partial information. I really wish I could be more detailed in what I'm trying.

Usually I'm very practical but my interest in this is mostly philosophical. Having said that I have an idea that I'm attempting to model. You mentioned what I said not making sense. If you have a 1 foot moment arm and a 10 pound weight on it when that arm is at 90 degrees of rotation you'll have 10 foot/pounds of torque. If you allow the arm to come to rest at 180 degrees of rotation you'll have zero torque. If you'd want to balance the arm at 90 degrees of rotation you would need 10 pounds at 270 degrees of rotation. If you plotted torque around 360 degrees with the 10 pound weight you'd have a sine wave. What I'm attempting to model is a way to vary the torque at various yet specific moments in the rotation. That's about as specific as I think I can get. I'm sure that if I can vary the torque I'll cause the wheel to turn yet I don't know if that is possible. Most say it isn't.

Gene

 

[Ririon]

Most say it isn't.
Gene

Most people are right...

There is an easy way and a hard way to do calculations on your machine:

The easy way is energy. But you have thrown that out the window (counterintuitive for some reason). By the way, that is how I can make handwaving calculations about your machine that are more accurate than yours even though I have never seen your machine.

The hard way is analyzing forces and torques. (The even more complicated way is doing it using dark ages-style units, but that's beside the point.) The more complicated you make your machine, the easier it is to make a mistake. For simplicity you disregard friction, but if you end up with a perpetual motion machine (the wheel accelerates even without friction), you have made a mistake in your calculations.

How to find that mistake? That can be a challenge worthy of using some spare time, if you like that sort of thing. But you know it is there from doing it the easy way or building the actual device (which you seem to like, nothing wrong with that) and seing for yourself that it doesn't work.

Ririon

 

[roger]

You can continue to work on it (nobody will stop you from wasting your time), but I fail to see the point in your continual postings. A full rotation is as far as the wheel could rotate in a perfect system (a perfect system would have no friction or other losses on the wheel). Much like a graph of y=1/x approaching an asymptote of y=0, you will never get there and will surely never pass it.

I forsee your future posts taking on this format:
"Okay I'm at 359 degrees"
"now I am at 359.9 degrees"
"Today I am at 359.99 degrees"
"Guess what! I got 359.999 degrees today, just a little further!"
"I can almost smell the money rolling in. Today I hit 359.9999 degrees!"
... ad nauseam ...

Actually what this thread reads like to me:


Inventor: I intend to find a way to make 2+2=5. When I do I'll put my money in the bank that way and I'll be RIICCCH!!!! I'll put in 2+2, then withdraw 5. Keep the extra dollar and do it again with the remaining 4!

JREF: but 2+2=4.

I: Yes, but I intend to manipulate the equation. Today I had the idea of adding 2 to one side, but 1+1 to the other. I got 5! But then I noticed I made a math error. Nonetheless, I am now closer to my goal!

JREF: but 2+2=4.

I: yes, but I think that maybe if I add 2 to each side, but on one side make 2 an infinite series sum, maybe I can get it to be a bit more than two. I won't have 2+2=5, but maybe 2+2=4.00000000001. But then I can do that 100 million times and get 5.

JREF: No, an infinite series that sums to 2 sums to 2, not 2.000000001. And anyway, 2+2=4.

I: Well, I wrote a program and summed the first 2 trillion terms of the series. Interestingly, it only summed to 1.999999999999999999997. This is counter to my intuition, but very encouraging. Perhaps if I add this to the other side of the equation I will make progress. This is very exciting!!

JREF: Infinite series that add to 2 will, in fact, add to 2. Study Taylor series please.

I: Well, I've added another 10 trillion terms, and unforunately I seem to be loosing some of the inequality that I wanted - it's getting verry close to 2. But maybe if I keep going it will add to more than 2. I still feel that I am on the right track here. Maybe I need to try a different infinite series.

JREF: arghhhh!


Moving a weight on a wheel from here to over here, adding a lever there, etc., is nothing more than adding the same number to both sides of an equation. You still end up with an equality, no matter how 'clever' you are at arranging the mechanical parts.

 

[FortyTwo]

For a PMM comprised of simple mechanical devices such as wheels, gears, levers, springs, etc. there is a fundamental issue in that, if one could be made to work, then our knowedge of how mechanics and gravity work must be seriously flawed. Yet, man has designed and built countless machines, from simple to extremely complex, yet none of these fails to behave according to the laws of physics as we understand them. If there was some quirk that would permit a PMM to work, then we would surely see some significant anomalies in the workings of other machines even if they did not run on their own.

BTW, 2+2 does equal 4 for very large values of 2.

 

[roger]

FortyTwo, exactly. Furthermore, let us stipulate that gravity is not a conservative force, or whatever the experimenter wants. We still know how levers, wheels, etc. work, and they do in fact obey these simple mathematical rules. So as far as I am concerned the problem reduces down to my apparently facetious post, trying to make 2+2 not = 4. Never going to happen, and I can't grasp why somebody would try otherwise. As you say, we would have noticed by now if wheels don't behave how we think they do.

 

[AgingYoung]

Ririon,
Torque can be changed in a wheel yet the problem is changing it back or resetting it. Generally speaking most people don't consider a matter in too much depth and rely on what experts have to say about it and come to the same conclusions the expert came to. They trust the expert's opinion. Now at times the expert states as fact something that is merely hypothesis. People restate that hypothesis as being fact and they may or may not be right; they've not given the matter any thought. Recently I heard someone support a point with the opinion from a professor emeritus of physics at Binghamton University and the professor stated that 'if you would do this you would find that...'. The problem with what he was proposing is that it was humanly impossible to do. He was merely speculating. I think that happens a lot.

I haven't actually built a complete machine. Right now I'm looking at the details of a part of it. I'm assuming that since there is a reaction for every action this mechanism is going to have to accelerate then decelerate in order to adjust the torque. In that change there's some inefficiency that you rightly observed. However you made no calculations nor could you and mine are rather accurate.

If foot-pounds are 'dark ages-style units' and also beside the point why did you mention that fact and also why is it that in an economy that is 40% of the world's every torque wrench you can purchase is calibrated in those units? You lost me there. Units of measure are a matter of convention and the best ones for a person are the ones they think in and can visualize. Their use is similar to a preference for a language. I speak a little french but I have to translate in my mind; I think in english.

I do agree that the best way 'calculate' the forces is to build a model. That model is an analog computer or dynamic scale and is going to come closer to what's happening than any sliderule. Naturally I disagree with your conclusion.

FortyTwo,

Thoughtful post. I don't agree with your conclusion, 'then our knowledge of how mechanics and gravity work must be seriously flawed.' There are simple mechanisms that preform complex motions. The simple machines of the wheels, levers and inclined planes have been around for some time yet it took a while for someone to figure out the simple mechanisms that we now have. If you look at the matter of perpetual motion and try to imagine a mechanism that would accomplish that you aren't being specific enough.

The mechanism I'm looking at has twice as much torque thru the first 180 degrees of rotation as it does heading up from the bottom back to 360 or zero degrees. I visually compared the areas under the curves of calculated torques (the difference) to come to that conclusion. Actually I did some cut and paste of a printout. To accomplish that difference in torque does require some work yet that work is accomplished by gravity at both changes. I think the difference is remarkable but I also think I can increase the difference. What is happening in this mechanism isn't contrary to our present understanding of mechanics and gravity. More accurately it's a novel approach using mechanics to change momentary forces so that what would normally be there (sans changez) isn't.

Roger,

And they say Johnnie can't read. Now the new math might be a problem.

Gene

 

[Ririon]

I haven't actually built a complete machine. Right now I'm looking at the details of a part of it. I'm assuming that since there is a reaction for every action this mechanism is going to have to accelerate then decelerate in order to adjust the torque. In that change there's some inefficiency that you rightly observed. However you made no calculations nor could you and mine are rather accurate.

I made the few and simple calculations I could based on your information. (Like my estimate of 75 % efficiency.) You made calculations that are either flat out wrong or worthy of about half of the Nobel prizes, since they indicate a perpetual motion machine.

If foot-pounds are 'dark ages-style units' and also beside the point why did you mention that fact and also why is it that in an economy that is 40% of the world's every torque wrench you can purchase is calibrated in those units? You lost me there. Units of measure are a matter of convention and the best ones for a person are the ones they think in and can visualize. Their use is similar to a preference for a language. I speak a little french but I have to translate in my mind; I think in english.

It was beside the point. If you want to, I could even throw in something completely irrelevant, if you want something more to derail about.

I do agree that the best way 'calculate' the forces is to build a model. That model is an analog computer or dynamic scale and is going to come closer to what's happening than any sliderule. Naturally I disagree with your conclusion.

Feel free to disagree with nature. But beware: Breaking the laws of physics can result in a swift and brutal penalty. Disagreeing with me, on the other hand, is pretty harmless. I wouldn't dream of stopping you from building a perpetual motion machine. Nature will stop you every single time you try.

 

[hellaeon]

I am a perpetual motion machine.

I pass gass in insane amounts to the point the laughter from friends turns to disbelief. We aint talking just a fluffle here and there, lots of silent whisps, we are talking huge dastardly sounds, sometimes enough to bring tears of laughter, other times a nasal death from the swampy stench, but enough to make you question the evolutionary process and how I came to be.

There is enough gas in me I know could kill a household if it was airtight and I was left in there without food for 10 hours then a feast. The thing is it is inhuman to have this much gas. I am creating this from something, but it is unknown surely to man.

Even degas products only momentarily stop the violence. I need a degas DRIP 24/7. Friends have drawn cartoon pictures of me with a gas cloud behind me permanently.

I think I will apply for the challenge because I dont understand how it comes to be or how the body works, but thats not the point. The point is anybody can do this science stuff. Its easy. Isn't it?

 

[AgingYoung]

The point is anybody can do this science stuff. Its easy. Isn't it?

Yo, dude. I see the point you're stressin' and I used to think it was true, that anybody could do this science stuff. After reading your post I'm beginning to have my doubts. Keep on tokin' and with all that gas I'm sure you know you have to time the lighting of that pipe. If I never hear from you again I'll know what happened.

Gene

...all in all you're just some
flatulence in the wind.

 

[FortyTwo]

I don't agree with your conclusion, 'then our knowledge of how mechanics and gravity work must be seriously flawed.'

OK then, let's look at things from a very fundamental level. As I understand your project, you are attempting to build a machine that runs on gravity. In other words, with no other source of energy than gravity, your machine (if successful) will make at least one complete cycle arriving at the starting position with all pieces in the same location as when started.

Now lets consider two fundamental laws of physics:

First off, there is the law of conservation of energy. This law states that for any closed system, energy is neither created nor destroyed. If you believe this law applies to the universe, then your machine must get energy from someplace. I believe you are attempting to tap gravity for that source.

Since you are using gravity as your energy source, we need to consider the law of gravity. This law states that every object attracts every other object with a force that is follows the equation: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 where G is the universal gravitation constant, m1 and m2 are the mass of the two objects, and r^2 is the square of the distance between the two objects.

As far as my knowledge of physics goes, the force of gravity between two objects some distance apart is absolutely constant. so long as the mass and distance do not change, the gravitational force does not change.

Now, assuming that your machine works as intended, it gets energy from the force of gravity between the earth and the various components of the machine. Because of friction, it dissipates some energy in the form of heat which is energy lost to our ever present friend Entropy. Eventually it arrives back to its starting position ready for another cycle.

Since energy cannot be created, the machine MUST extract energy from gravity at least equal to that lost to friction. Also, since energy cannot be created, we can only conclude that your machine has slightly decreased the gravitational force between the earth and your machine. This would seem to contradict the law of gravity.

Since your machine is at its initial state, the distance between each component and the earth will not have changed. So, the only way to balance the gravity equation would be for the mass of the earth and/or your machine to have changed. Barring some kind of subatomic reaction, a given substance does not change its mass. Certainly we have no evidence that substances change their mass in response to a system of wheels and weights moving about.

Since we have no other explanation of why your machine would work, we would have to conclude that the law of gravity was incorrect. Hence, our understanding of how mechanics and gravity work would have to be seriously flawed.

As an aside, I would be afraid to run a machine that really did operate off of gravity. Since energy cannot be created, wouldn't large scale use of such a machine put us in jeopardy of one day floating off into space as the gravitational energy is eventually exhausted???

 

[hellaeon]

Yo, dude. I see the point you're stressin' and I used to think it was true, that anybody could do this science stuff. After reading your post I'm beginning to have my doubts. Keep on tokin' and with all that gas I'm sure you know you have to time the lighting of that pipe. If I never hear from you again I'll know what happened.

Gene

...all in all you're just some
flatulence in the wind.

rather assumptive of me to be a 'toker' ?

Your song quote was weak. Dont abuse such institutional bands and songs.

!

 

[AgingYoung]

rather assumptive of me to be a 'toker' ?

• That's too funny.
• It was a morph between 2 songs.
• So what's really on your mind, Hellaeon?
• Is that your girlfriend in the picture?
• Which one's you?

Gene

 

[hellaeon]

• That's too funny.
• It was a morph between 2 songs.
• So what's really on your mind, Hellaeon?
• Is that your girlfriend in the picture?
• Which one's you?

Gene

* assumes jim carey laugh from pet detective *

 

[AgingYoung]

FortyTwo,

Since you are using gravity as your energy source

Gravity is a force (or an acceleration), not an energy source. Later in your post you mention that so I'm sure you know that.

Since energy cannot be created, the machine MUST extract energy from gravity at least equal to that lost to friction.

Given that the law of conservation is true then I could agree with the term 'extract'. If it can't be created you're going to have to find some energy somewhere to do the work that you want to do. I believe the premise, 'matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed, they can only be changed in form' is faulty. It's not our understanding of gravity and mechanics that I suspect.

The way I'm attempting to 'create' energy is by varying the torque at different and specific points in the wheel. The model of a partial mechanism I have does have that characteristic yet one of them isn't sufficient to spin 360 degrees. I think that 3 will do it. I took the model of one mechanism and attached other weights in the position they would be in for the other two mechanisms; it would turn to the point that the next mechanism (that is enabled by gravity) was in position to shift. I can't see why it won't work yet the only way to really know is to build it.

I really do appreciate your thoughtful comments, FortyTwo.

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

Friction is a force opposing motion present wherever two materials move against each other. Friction results in the dissipation of energy primarily in the form of heat. Because friction is present to some degree for any two materials which move against each other, the only way to eliminate friction is to eliminate the contact and movement between the materials. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy is irreversibly dissipated from all systems. A system which has no friction (for example, a hypothetical frictionless bearing) would have no irreversible loss of energy and so would be a violation of the second law. Therefore, no frictionless system can be constructed.

This refers to the law of entropy. (It is useful to refer to laws by name rather than by number - it's less confusing for regular folk.)
1. there are ways, other than friction, in which processes can (irreversibly) lose energy ... they can radiate it away (electromagnetically?) for eg. So a proposed "frictionless" system need not violate the entropy law.
2. The entropy law only requires that changes in entropy of a closed system must be positive with time. It is possible to have a system with no entropy change, without violating this. Such systems need not be static - eg. some adiabatic processes are isentropic.

Generally, one should be careful about argument from definition.

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon,

Fine point and thank you for making it. If all goes well and I'm at the point of stating specifically what I intend to do it will read something like this:

Utilizing only the force of gravity this machine will rotate until it mechanically fails or the universe ceases to exist.

I'm not really interested in explaining what's precisely taking place and I think that Randi's not interested in my explanation. They'll have people with a lot more on the ball than I ever could take a serious look at it and they'll explain it. It is my humble opinion that it will be the event of millennia.

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

For a PMM comprised of simple mechanical devices such as wheels, gears, levers, springs, etc. there is a fundamental issue in that, if one could be made to work, then our knowedge of how mechanics and gravity work must be seriously flawed. Yet, man has designed and built countless machines, from simple to extremely complex, yet none of these fails to behave according to the laws of physics as we understand them. If there was some quirk that would permit a PMM to work, then we would surely see some significant anomalies in the workings of other machines even if they did not run on their own.

This tends not to be a very strong argument. We have machines now which violate physical laws as they were known a mere century ago. What makes you think that the known physical laws cannot be broken? (That they are yet to be, is just an argument by induction... vis: irrational.) What PMM inventors hope is that their machine may be the one that demonstrates that existing knowledge is flawed.

BTW, 2+2 does equal 4 for very large values of 2.

2+2= anything from -4 to 4 while restricting myself to projections on a simple number line. If I start going into special topographies then all bets are off. I can get 2+2=5 if I do the sum within an k-manifold in Rymann space with a half-pi conceptual twist... but I can't seem to convince my bank manager...