Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Freethinker]

For the record, I've worked as an engineer.

I would assume if your WERE an engineer, you would state so, rather than the ambiguous "I've worked as an engineer.". Let us know, just as soon as you have one working.

 

[AgingYoung]

Freethinker,

Not having a degree in engineering doesn't preclude someone from working in engineering. Another classmate and I designed and built a circuit for an industrial application while we were in school. It was a commercial project.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

That project included integrated circuits. We took it from a concept to a breadboard then to circuit board that we designed and etched. We packaged it and delivered it. You can buy that application in a single chip today.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

You could look at that example as a couple of kids doing a project. My brother hired an engineer that was still in school. Part of his compensation package included a high end sports car. No degree, full time job.

There are companies that are more interested in someone that can do a job than if they have a degree. In architecture it's a little different; some disciplines don't have strict requirements.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

A final example: One of my teacher's had a brother who was a technician. He worked for Shell managing a department of engineers (petro-chemical).

Gene

 

[Freethinker]

Freethinker,

Not having a degree in engineering doesn't preclude someone from working in engineering. Another classmate and I designed and built a circuit for an industrial application while we were in school. It was a commercial project.

Gene

Certainly not, but it does tell you whether the person has the appropriate background in mechanics to make a reasonable evaluation of the physics involved. Designing and building a circuit is a subset of what an electrical engineer might do. Try doing it at 3 or 4 GHz and the job changes quite a bit.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Having a degree or not having a degree is not as important as having knowledge and intelligence. I don't have a degree. I didn't have the opportunity to get one; I'm self taught. Engineering knowledge is readily available and can be learned by anyone with the desire to learn and a little natural talent.

I assure you I have the appropriate background in mechanics to make a more than reasonable evaluation of the physics involved.

 

[IXP]

Having a degree or not having a degree is not as important as having knowledge and intelligence. I don't have a degree. I didn't have the opportunity to get one; I'm self taught. Engineering knowledge is readily available and can be learned by anyone with the desire to learn and a little natural talent.

I assure you I have the appropriate background in mechanics to make a more than reasonable evaluation of the physics involved.

That is impressive. I know of noone else who is self-taught in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to the level that they can show a discrepency of the theory with experiment -- something no physicst has yet done.

IXP

 

[Jim_Mich]

Who said anything about General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? I said, "have the appropriate background in mechanics ...” not Quantum Mechanics! There's a big difference.

Although I know a about General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics they have little to do with evaluating everyday movement of objects, momentum, inertia, centrifugal force, centripetal force, leverage, torque, kinetic energy, forces, velocity, weight, mass, acceleration, or the trigonometry and algebra involved with the calculation of motion and work energy.

 

[AgingYoung]

Hello Hellaeon,

You know what I mean, I just dont speak the correct 'lingo'. I should be corrected though to speak more clearly. I meant a correctly measured diagram with a high degree of accuracy. This in turn will show other physical constraints and allowances and can then be verified properly by qualified people before any refining of physical material is undertaken.

When you really don't know what a person is saying it's best to ask for clarification.

Use whatever program or means is necessary but in my mind, its a better way to show you know what your talking about. It would also possibly allow you to remove ideas you can see wont work a lot quicker. It will allow you to take it to people who can review it and see where you are going wrong.

The program I'm using is adequate for small intervals of parts of the model that I'm looking at. As far as I can tell it's impossible to simulate this model with it. I think there's a problem with the way the simulator approximates reality but it's not that same idea mentioned way up thread about the very slight differences in that approximation. I think there are extremely significant errors in the way it approximates Newtonian physics; much less reality.

If your worried by someone stealing your idea, try to get it patented or even have them sign a contract, prepared by a lawyer.

I'm not worried about anyone stealing my ideas. If they're valid I'll publish a paper after I enter the Randi. The concept will be in the public domain.

For the record I still think its fruitless and you should just get a degree in engineering and actually build real things. Its more fun when you know what your doing and more rewarding I am sure.

I like the way you qualify 'it's more fun when you know what your doing' with 'I'm sure’; like you don't know. Well, maybe not.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

That is impressive. I know of noone else who is self-taught in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to the level that they can show a discrepency of the theory with experiment -- something no physicst has yet done.

IXP

It would be a first. You might consider the idea that there isn't a discrepancy (in gr or qm) that is needed to explain a gravity powered wheel. Jim made that point but that's another way to look at it; that no discrepancy exists or is needed.

Gene

 

[IXP]

Who said anything about General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? I said, "have the appropriate background in mechanics ...” not Quantum Mechanics! There's a big difference.

Although I know a about General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics they have little to do with evaluating everyday movement of objects, momentum, inertia, centrifugal force, centripetal force, leverage, torque, kinetic energy, forces, velocity, weight, mass, acceleration, or the trigonometry and algebra involved with the calculation of motion and work energy.

Given the theories of either classical mechanics and gravity or quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is mathematically provable that you cannot gain energy by moving masses around in a gravitational field. So, if you believe you can do so, you must be proposing that these theories are incorrect in some way. I think if you are to find the discrepency, you will have to extend these theories, which, as I said before, has not been done in any testable way since they have been developed.

IXP

 

[Freethinker]

Having a degree or not having a degree is not as important as having knowledge and intelligence. I don't have a degree. I didn't have the opportunity to get one; I'm self taught. Engineering knowledge is readily available and can be learned by anyone with the desire to learn and a little natural talent.

I assure you I have the appropriate background in mechanics to make a more than reasonable evaluation of the physics involved.

But you are the one spending their time on the free energy boards trying to prove perpetual motion machines are possible, while the folks with degrees aren't. You came here and "implied" that you were an engineer. The only reason you would make that claim was to lend some air of validity to your statements. You are chasing an imaginary beast that doesn't exist, but your lack of understanding of the physics involved won't let you see the futility.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Yes, it's mathematically provable that you cannot gain energy by moving masses around in a gravitatioinal field because Cosine of Angle times Radial Distance will always cause the downward forces producing energy to equal the upward forces needed to raise the weights back up. It is also true that energy gained from inertial momentum is needed again to resume the weights speed. Most people only look at what happens when using gravity and/or inertia on single weights. The game gets much more complex and interesting when weights are inter-connected causing a complex exchange of inertial kinetic energy between numerious weights of different masses.

As I said earlier, "There's no proof that a gravity powered perpetual motion wheels cannot be built since it's impossible to prove a negative. There's historical proof that Bessler built a wheel that seemed to turn in a perpetual manner." So I can do one of two things. I can choose to accept the current unprovable scientific theory that says gaining energy from gravity and inertia is imposible; or I can choose to consider that maybe Bessler did what is considered inpossible, and I can enjoy the search for how he did it.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Mr. Freethinker,
You imply that people without engineering degrees always know less than people with degrees. That's a very snobbish elitist attitude. If one works as a cook he is considered a cook. If one works as a secretary she is considered a secretary. I worked as an engineer. I designed the mechanical portions of medical diagnostic machines. In another job I worked as an engineer troubleshooting mechanical production line problems in a computer factory. I designed printed circuitry for early computers. I designed and tested Styrofoam packaging for shipping computers. I've written hundreds of computer programs over the past 25 years. I've written computer programs that simulate internal combustion engines. I've written computer programs that simulate perpetual motion gravity wheels. I use the very same knowledge and formulas that degreed "engineers" use.

Just because one hasn't spent the total required hours attending classes and passed all the exam doesn't mean that person has less learning.

I also built my own house including wiring, plumbing, drywalling, roofing, painting, etc. I don't claim to be an electrician, plumber, drywaller, roofer or painter as I've never done these things as an occupation. But I probably know more about wiring than many plumbers and I probably know more about plumbing than many electricians. My point is, Mr. Freethinker, you don't know enough about me and how much learning I have or what my IQ is to judge if I have a "lack of understanding." You automatically consider anyone "chasing an imaginary beast that doesn't exist" (in your opinion) to be less intelligent.

 

[Freethinker]

Mr. Freethinker,
You imply that people without engineering degrees always know less than people with degrees. That's a very snobbish elitist attitude. If one works as a cook he is considered a cook. If one works as a secretary she is considered a secretary. I worked as an engineer. I designed the mechanical portions of medical diagnostic machines. In another job I worked as an engineer troubleshooting mechanical production line problems in a computer factory. I designed printed circuitry for early computers. I designed and tested Styrofoam packaging for shipping computers. I've written hundreds of computer programs over the past 25 years. I've written computer programs that simulate internal combustion engines. I've written computer programs that simulate perpetual motion gravity wheels. I use the very same knowledge and formulas that degreed "engineers" use.

Just because one hasn't spent the total required hours attending classes and passed all the exam doesn't mean that person has less learning.

I also built my own house including wiring, plumbing, drywalling, roofing, painting, etc. I don't claim to be an electrician, plumber, drywaller, roofer or painter as I've never done these things as an occupation. But I probably know more about wiring than many plumbers and I probably know more about plumbing than many electricians. My point is, Mr. Freethinker, you don't know enough about me and how much learning I have or what my IQ is to judge if I have a "lack of understanding." You automatically consider anyone "chasing an imaginary beast that doesn't exist" (in your opinion) to be less intelligent.

But you believe in perpetual motion machines. That tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[IXP]

There's historical proof that Bessler built a wheel that seemed to turn in a perpetual manner." So I can do one of two things. I can choose to accept the current unprovable scientific theory that says gaining energy from gravity and inertia is imposible; or I can choose to consider that maybe Bessler did what is considered inpossible, and I can enjoy the search for how he did it.

What makes you think Bessler was not a fraud. His actions certainly support that position. You have a clockmaker who demonstrates a wheel moving by itself for short periods of time while hiding the internal mechanisms, and you consider that proof that he had discovered perpetual motion?

IXP

 

[Jim_Mich]

Freethinker, I believe gravity powered perpetual motion might be possible. Pure perpetual motion is most definitely not possible.

IXP, do the math! See if you can engineer a 12 foot wheel so it turns for 54 days, works in either direction at 20 RPM under load and 26 RPM unloaded, rotates up to speed within 3 rotations when given a light push, lift a 70 pound box of bricks as many times as requested, rides on 3/4 inch steel axle pins, be movable from one set of bearing blocks to another by two men when the weights are removed, drives a water screw, and is able to drive a hammer mill with a calculated output of at least 26 watts. Do the engineering calculations. There is no way that a clock mechanism could do these things. Bessler's enemies claimed he used wind up springs or some hidden drive mechanism from a near by room. The historical records and calculations show these claims to be very unlikely.

History shows that Karl (the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel) was an honorable and intelligent man. He saw the inside of the wheel and said it was a simple mechanism. Bessler said he would offer his head if a buyer found his wheel to be a fraud. He was negotiating to sell his wheel to a number of monarchs. If he had succeeded in closing a deal then I'm sure they would have had him executed where they to be cheated.

 

[Thing]

The game gets much more complex and interesting when weights are inter-connected causing a complex exchange of inertial kinetic energy between numerious weights of different masses.

No it doesn't.

 

[Macoy]

Alex (my mate) said he has designed a machine that would suck the energy from the rotation of the earth-moon system. He claims that using the third law of thermodynamics in this way will combat global warming.