Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[AgingYoung]

Thabiguy,

Jim can speak for himself but I took your advice.

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

The implication of that definition is that we've seen and experienced every possibility. Somehow I doubt we have.

Now if one would overturn a law of nature what they would actually be doing is correcting the empirical observations that produced that law. Empirical observation sounds so definitive and rings of authority but as history has taught sometimes even great minds have made mistakes. The expression also is a little detached from its source; that is to say it is only a human opinion.

What reality is and what human opinion says it is have in the past been two different things. I think that was Jim's point.

Gene

 

[Jim_Mich]

I said the " the laws of nature ... don't change." I stand by that statement. There is a difference between the "laws of nature" and mathematical expressions of those law and/or laws of science that are used to describe "natures laws."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law ...

So to large extent laws of nature are not laws of nature per se, but mathematical expressions of certain simplicities (symmetries) of space, time, etc.

Jim_Mich

 

[Jim_Mich]

... there is a law of nature saying that perpetuum motion machines are impossible. It literally says that - that energy cannot be created. It's called the law of conservation of energy, and you will find it in the list under this name. In order to build a PMM, you have to prove this law of nature wrong. Which, as explained above, is not impossible in principle. I just don't believe that you will pull that off.

So again, the difference between the Wright brothers and you is that they didn't need to disprove a law of nature. You do.

Again you misunderstand! I've never said that (pure) perpetual motion is possible; for I know that all engines need an energy source. I don't think the law of conservation of energy needs to be overturned in order to make a gravity powered wheel turn perpetually. Also I don't think there's any need to prove the law of conservation of energy wrong. What needs to be proven wrong is the concept that energy cannot be harnessed from a combination of motion and gravity. This might go against some of Einstein's laws concerning gravity. Einstein’s laws do not control nature; it is nature that dictates man's laws of science.

Bessler said that "weights gain energy from their swinging." I believe this may hold the key to gaining energy from gravity and motion. The formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2mv^2. When the speed of a moving weight doubles then its kinetic energy quadruples. There may be a way to take advantage of this increase in kinetic energy of weights in motion to produce free energy. In this way weights would "gain energy from their swinging."

Jim_Mich

 

[Thabiguy]

The implication of that definition is that we've seen and experienced every possibility. Somehow I doubt we have.

I don't see any such implication of that definition. Quite on the contrary: if we had seen and experienced every possibility, there would be no way to contradict prior observations and thus disprove the law. Because the law can be disproved, we necessarily must not have seen and experienced every possibility. Your assertion of such an implication is false.

Now if one would overturn a law of nature what they would actually be doing is correcting the empirical observations that produced that law.

Actually, no, they would just make new observations that would contradict the old ones. There's no way to "correct" past observations. You can at best try to explain them.

Empirical observation sounds so definitive and rings of authority but as history has taught sometimes even great minds have made mistakes.

Might I suggest that you do not interpret phrases according to what they sound like, but according to what they mean? If you look up "Empiricism" on Wikipedia, you will discover that it means the exact opposite of what you're asserting here. It means that as soon as Jim_Mich builds his perpetual motion wheel, the law of conservation of energy is disproved, even if ten thousand experts sign a petition that it should not be so. I'm sorry, but this doesn't ring of authority to me.

Of course, there's a catch: one must actually build that machine and show it to us; that's the empirical observation. It's not enough to engage in philosophical debates, make wild assertions that it's theoretically possible, and combined with anecdotal evidence, consider it as good as built.

What reality is and what human opinion says it is have in the past been two different things. I think that was Jim's point.

Of course. They are two different things even now, and will forever remain that. Human observers can never know what reality is. Opinions is as close as we'll ever get. To imply that this universal truth supports the validity of PMM is a logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (look that up).

To build a working PMM means to make a new observation that contradicts all our previous observations (that no macroscopic system ever creates any energy). This doesn't mean that it can't happen. This just means that there is nothing more certain than that it won't happen. (As in, the sun could in principle rise in the west tomorrow, but nothing is more certain than that it won't.) Feel free to disprove the law of conversation of energy by making such an observation. Unless you do that, no amount of philosophical reasoning will make the notion of PMM, or the sun rising in the west, any more likely.

I said the " the laws of nature ... don't change." I stand by that statement. There is a difference between the "laws of nature" and mathematical expressions of those law and/or laws of science that are used to describe "natures laws."

I see. So what you're saying is, "if I exploit semantic ambiguities of definitions, maybe I can pull off a straw man logical fallacy".

Very well. If you insist that you used the term "law of nature" in the meaning "fundamental operating principle of the universe", and not in the meaning "scientific generalization based on empirical observations", then your reply to my comment on the Wright brothers was in no way relevant to what I was saying, sir.

Let me restate my original comment in a way that will (hopefully) no longer be ambiguous to you: The difference between the Wright brothers and you is that the Wright brothers, in order to succeed, didn't need to disprove any physical law, where physical law denotes a mathematical expression, a scientific generalization based on empirical observation, not a hypothetical fundamental operating principle of the universe that this law strives to express. You do have to disprove a physical law in order to succeed.

If that is clear now, I invite you to restate your reply in a way that will be relevant to my comment.

 

[Cuddles]

The difference between flying and perpetual motion is that the evidence is all around us. Regardless of a few stupid comments by intelligent people, anyone who has ever seen a bird knows that heavier than air flying machines are possible. They might be very difficult to make and horribly impractical (although of course this turned out not to be the case), but they are very obviously possible and we can see evidence of this every day. On the other hand, there is nothing that has ever been seen to produce unlimited energy.

As has been said many times before, yes, they laughed at Gallileo and the Wright brothers, but mostly they laughed at clowns.

 

[Thabiguy]

I'm sorry, Jim_Mich, I overlooked this second comment of yours. I will reply to it now.

Again you misunderstand! I've never said that (pure) perpetual motion is possible; for I know that all engines need an energy source. I don't think the law of conservation of energy needs to be overturned in order to make a gravity powered wheel turn perpetually. Also I don't think there's any need to prove the law of conservation of energy wrong. What needs to be proven wrong is the concept that energy cannot be harnessed from a combination of motion and gravity.

Let me stop you right there.

Energy is the capacity of a system to do work. That's the definition of energy. (Cannot be disproved.) The law of conservation of energy then states that energy can not be created or destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another. (Can be disproved.)

Please note: energy is the work that a system can do. It's not something you extract from motion or gravity. You extract it from a system. As you're talking about gravity, I assume that this system is the Earth.

If you're saying that your wheel can do infinite amount of work, either you're contradicting the conservation law (that energy cannot be created) or you're saying that the Earth and its gravitational field has infinite energy that can be converted to electrical energy by means of your wheel connected to a generator. Considering that any Earth-sized collection of objects will have the same gravitational field and assuming (in accordance with your statement) that the conservation law still holds, the inevitable conclusion is that all objects have infinite energy and can therefore do infinite amount of work with their gravitational force. And as work is nothing else than force integrated over a path, such an observation would prove Newton's law of universal gravitation wrong. (Or, if the components of your wheel actually reach relativistic speeds, Einstein's field equations, but given the conditions, I think the Newtonian version will suffice.)

If you are more comfortable with having to prove wrong that law of science, rather than the conservation law, be my guest. You still have a physical law to disprove.

This might go against some of Einstein's laws concerning gravity. Einstein’s laws do not control nature; it is nature that dictates man's laws of science.

You are quite correct, it is empirical observation of nature that we base our physical laws on. These observations all support the laws that say that you cannot build your wheel. Feel free to present your own observations that indicate otherwise. Observations, not wishful thinking along the lines of "if I can put together an argument that seems convincing, perhaps apples will start falling upwards tomorrow".

Bessler said that "weights gain energy from their swinging." I believe this may hold the key to gaining energy from gravity and motion. The formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2mv^2. When the speed of a moving weight doubles then its kinetic energy quadruples. There may be a way to take advantage of this increase in kinetic energy of weights in motion to produce free energy. In this way weights would "gain energy from their swinging."

Good luck.

 

[nathan]

Yes, it's mathematically provable that you cannot gain energy by moving masses around in a gravitatioinal field ...

There's no proof that a gravity powered perpetual motion wheels cannot be built

I fail to understand how both those statements can be simultaneously true.

since it's impossible to prove a negative.

It's quite easy to prove some negatives. It's harder to prove others and it's impossible to prove some. Proving that a gravity powered PMM is impossible under Newton's laws or under GR is in the second of those three camps.

 

[Jim_Mich]

It means that as soon as Jim_Mich builds his perpetual motion wheel, the law of conservation of energy is disproved, even if ten thousand experts sign a petition that it should not be so. I'm sorry, but this doesn't ring of authority to me.

No, a perpetual motion machine powered by gravity and inertia would NOT disprove the conservation of energy law. It would only alter the view of how gravity and inertia work.

Energy is the capacity of a system to do work. That's the definition of energy. (Cannot be disproved.) The law of conservation of energy then states that energy can not be created or destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another. (Can be disproved.)

This is very true. A working gravity powered perpetually turning wheel would gain its energy from gravity and inertia. It would be changing energy from one form to another, which is what all engines do.

Please note: energy is the work that a system can do. It's not something you extract from motion or gravity. You extract it from a system. As you're talking about gravity, I assume that this system is the Earth.

Here lays a problem between your concept of gravity being an Earth system and what I think is a truer concept of gravity being a shielding affect where the Earth causes gravitation by shielding a flow of "something" that is called by various names by various people. This "something" is may be called Zero Point Energy, Prime Background Radiation, Orgon Energy, Casimir Effect, Tachyons, or my preferred name is Ether Energy.

If you're saying that your wheel can do infinite amount of work, either you're contradicting the conservation law (that energy cannot be created) or you're saying that the Earth and its gravitational field has infinite energy that can be converted to electrical energy by means of your wheel connected to a generator. Considering that any Earth-sized collection of objects will have the same gravitational field and assuming (in accordance with your statement) that the conservation law still holds, the inevitable conclusion is that all objects have infinite energy and can therefore do infinite amount of work with their gravitational force.

Obviously the Earth does not have infinite energy. Neither would any perpetual motion device that taps gravity and inertia have infinite energy. Such a device would have a finite amount of energy available per unit of time and relative to the size of the machine.

And as work is nothing else than force integrated over a path, such an observation would prove Newton's law of universal gravitation wrong.

I see no reason why Newton's law would be wrong. Newton never defined what causes gravity. Newton's laws only defined how gravity works, not what causes it.

(Or, if the components of your wheel actually reach relativistic speeds, Einstein's field equations, but given the conditions, I think the Newtonian version will suffice.)

It would never reach relativistic speeds. Any wheel can only withstand a limited rotational velocity before it explodes.

Jim_Mich

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
Obviously the Earth does not have infinite energy. Neither would any perpetual motion device that taps gravity and inertia have infinite energy. Such a device would have a finite amount of energy available per unit of time and relative to the size of the machine.

Jim_Mich

Energy per unit time is power, and says nothing about the total energy available.

An inability to distinguish between the concepts of power and energy seems to be common to "free energy" devotees.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Energy is power over time, therefore I should have used the term 'power' in this case rather than 'energy' and my statement should read, "Such a device would have a finite amount of power available per unit of time and relative to the size of the machine." I assure you that I know the difference between energy and power!

Nathan,
The mathematical proof that moving weights around in a gravitational field makes certain assumptions that may or may not be right for a given situation. It can be proven that it takes the same energy to raise a weight as that weight provides by falling. This means it's impossible to gain energy in a wheel powered ONLY by single weights moving in a gravitationl field. If inertia is taken into account (which it must be) then again it is impossible to gain energy using single weights. However, these proofs are limited to single weights on a wheel acting alone. Weights paired and leveraged together can act in an unusual manner.

If I told you that an object can hang out in mid-air resting on a single contact point at the far end of the object, you would be skeptical. But a gyroscope does just that. It seems to defy gravity. It does not break any laws of science. It's a special unique situation. I believe a gravity powered PMM would be a similar special unique situation.

Jim_Mich

 

[IXP]

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. ....Lord Kelvin, 1895

What an amusing statement. I wonder how he reconciled this with the undisputed observation that birds fly?

a. Birds do not fly, it is an illusion.
b. Birds are lighter than air.
c. Birds are living creatures and therefore not subject to the same physical laws as machines.

I would vote for c, though I think most scientists know better today.

IXP

 

[Thabiguy]

A working gravity powered perpetually turning wheel would gain its energy from gravity and inertia. It would be changing energy from one form to another, which is what all engines do.

Okay, once again: energy is the capacity of a system to do work. If you're saying that you're gaining energy by changing it from one form to another, then you're saying that you're gaining it from a system. You cannot say "there's no system". If there's no system, then there's no energy. If you're trying to define your own, Jim_Mich_energy, which is not a capacity of a system to do work but something else, then you're violating the conservation law, which says nothing about Jim_Mich_energy. If you're converting Jim_Mich_energy to energy, you're creating energy. Which contradicts the conservation law.

Luckily for you though, there is a system. When you say that you're gaining energy from "gravity", then the Earth and its gravitational field is the system that you're gaining it from.

Here lays a problem between your concept of gravity being an Earth system and what I think is a truer concept of gravity being a ...

It is completely irrelevant what gravity is. It might just as well be little dwarves pulling objects with invisible strings. The only thing that is relevant is that you say your machine will work when placed next to the Earth.

Obviously the Earth does not have infinite energy.

If your machine can be built, then obviously it does. Proof: Take one Earth and attach it to your machine, attached to a generator. How much work can this Earth do? Considering that your machine can run forever with non-zero power output, it can do infinite amount of work. Its capacity to do work (= its energy) is therefore infinite.

 

[IXP]

The mathematical proof that moving weights around in a gravitational field makes certain assumptions that may or may not be right for a given situation. It can be proven that it takes the same energy to raise a weight as that weight provides by falling. This means it's impossible to gain energy in a wheel powered ONLY by single weights moving in a gravitationl field. If inertia is taken into account (which it must be) then again it is impossible to gain energy using single weights. However, these proofs are limited to single weights on a wheel acting alone. Weights paired and leveraged together can act in an unusual manner.

The proof is not limited to a single weight. It can be proved that any number of weights moved in any manner and returned to their initial positions (at rest let us say), does not gain or lose any energy. If your wheel is started and stopped in the same position it cannot produce any energy in between these two states. This is a mathematical consquence of the properties of a conservative force. Gravity, either under Newton's or Einstein's laws is a conservative force, and this can be proved mathematically.

If the wheel is started and stopped in a different state, the energy gained (or lost) is equal to the difference in the sum of the mass times the height of all of the weights. To put it back to the initial state requies the same amount (or releases the same amount) of energy as it this difference. For your wheel to work, it would require that this property of the gravitiational field is wrong. Good luck.

With respect to drawing energy out of the earth's gravitional field, this would require that the gravitation field depletes as the energy is expended. But the gravitional field depends only on the mass. Therefore the energy extracted would by due to the loss of mass of the earth. How will your wheel do this?

IXP

 

[Jim_Mich]

You still don't get what I'm saying. I'll try to come down to your level of thinking and describe using greater detail.

I never said there was no Earth gravity system. In talking about any engine you need to define the system within which the engine works. If you define the system enclosure too small you will see energy flowing in and out. If you draw the system enclosure bigger then at some point it will include the whole system with no input or output. You, Thabiguy, keep trying to enclose the whole Earth and the gravitation on the Earth into one closed system. I say that it's NOT a closed system. I say that gravity is a product of the Earth interacting with Ether Energy (or whatever name you prefer to use) and that this Ether Energy constitutes an external input of energy. As such you cannot have a closed system on the Earth.
But nether do you have infinite energy. You only have available that Ether Energy that passes through the systems boundaries. If a system is my PMM then you will only have available that amount of energy that the machine can capture and convert to mechanical energy. The rate at which the machine can do this determines the amount of work energy the machine can produce.

In conclusion you keep trying to equate any PMM to an infinite energy source then you try to show that any PMM would need to draw all its energy from the Earth, which obviously cannot supply infinite energy. I say that a gravity powered PMM would draw its power from gravity and inertia and that both gravity and inertia are an interaction of mass with Ether Energy and as such the source of this energy comes from outside the Earth.

The formula for kinetic energy is E = 1/2*m*v^2 which I'm sure you are aware of. When an object doubles its speed then the kinetic energy of the moving object increases by the square of the velocity. Normally as the object decelerates it gives back the same energy that was input. But if a method was found to take advantage of this non-linear increase of energy in moving swinging objects then we could harness free energy.

Jim_Mich

 

[Thabiguy]

It gets better and better. You're now saying that there is a new kind of energy, which you call Ether Energy, and the Earth and the PMM together form a device that converts this energy to mechanical work. You're saying that the Earth is awash in the flow of this energy.

My questions are: Did you come to the conclusion that this energy exists because you observed a phenomenon which its existence can explain? Does it manifest in any other way then making PMMs possible? And, most importantly, can you propose an experiment and the result thereof, that would disprove the existence of such energy?

 

[rwguinn]

Why, shucks, yeah!
How could we have missed it!! I am totally convinced!!!.
If we expand the system to include the entire Universe, we have a PMM!!!!
Unfortunately, that's a mistake on the same order as "5 gallons per minute withdrawal is nothing to worry about--look at the Atlantic Ocean" when what you are discussing is a goldfish bowl.
Just remember: Unlike the laws of man, the laws of nature cannot be violated. Those who make attempts are arrested, convicted, and sentenced in a court from which there is no appeal.
"Thou shalt not stand in front of a train"

 

[Jim_Mich]

Ether Energy is not some new kind of energy. It's called by different names by different people. Some call it ZPE, some call it Zero Point Energy, some call it radiant energy, and there are a number of other names. It is the building block energy of the universe. I didn't invent it, I only recognize that it must exist. Do an internet search. There are many scientist researching concepts related to it. The name I choose is irrelevant. The concept is what counts.

Jim_Mich

 

[Jim_Mich]

This explains my Ether Energy concept in a little more detail...

I think the problem is that some scientist and engineers come to believe that all of their learned laws are absolutely infallible. They base their livelihoods on being able to predict what will likely happen under certain circumstances. They have a personal vested interest in the outcome of their own predictions. If they design a bridge and if fails it will most likely destroy their bridge building career. If they predict that mixing certain chemicals will most likely produce some new chemical with expected properties then if they're often wrong they will loose their job. These types of jobs require them to be able to predict what will happen in certain situations and they are almost always right. At times they may observe aberrations (a state or condition markedly different from the norm) where the results are unusual. They can take time to explore these aberrations or they can ignore them and continue with their job duties. Most will do the latter. If they explore the aberration they may try to make it fit into their own preconception of how things work. If the preconceptions of how things work are wrong then they will be unable to explain the aberration. In which case they will dismiss it as just an aberration and forget about it. For if they were to question their own beliefs about how and why things act as they do then they will destroy the basis of all their learning and possibly their livelihoods. It's safer to stick with the commonly accepted concepts and ideas.

If we look at our present concept of physics there are areas that have large unknowns. These areas concern how energy forces move and interact through seemingly empty space. I'm talking about gravity, light, radiant heat, etc. At one time scientist thought there might be an invisible fluid like substance through which these forces were transmitted, which they called aether. They made an assumption that the speed of light would be affected by any movement of the aether. In the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment they set about to compare the speed of light in two directions at right angles to each other, assuming that the light would drift with any aether flow and that they would detect that drift. The results were that they could not detect any aether drift. So they realized that their theory of about aether was wrong. They then made an assumption that there was no aether. But WHAT IF they were RIGHT about the existence of aether but WRONG about how it works? If science rejects the idea of an aether and it does exist then science is left short handed in its understanding of how the universe works. There are a number of scientist that now think an aether does exist but that it has different properties and attributes that those expected by Michelson. After 127 years of following Michelson's wrong path that led nowhere these scientist are striking out on a new path. That path goes by numerous names such as Zero Point Energy, ZPE, Ether Energy, Cosmic Energy, etc. The term Aether is not used because it assumes an almost stationary fluid like substance containing no energy except those forces moving though it.

I prefer to use the term Ether to distinguish it from aether and I prefer to use the term Energy because it is the pure basic energy that our universe is built from. Together the term Ether Energy means, "That energy force from which the universe is built and which continues to keep it interacting and moving." The basic building block material of our universe is Ether Energy. Ether Energy causes our whole existence. It is like light in that it moves, flows, and vibrates simultaneously in all directions just as light does. Light is just a tiny visible piece of the Ether Energy spectrum. We only see imbalances of Ether Energy within our visible spectrum. What we see as darkness is not an absence of light but rather an absence of any imbalance of light.

Our universe is an "image" within the Ether Energy. What is an image? An image is greater and lesser quantities of light that form patterns. When Ether Energy becomes concentrated it forms matter as in E=MC^2. If we want to understand Ether Energy we can look at light. Light flows in all directions simultaneously. It can flow though matter or be blocked by matter. It can have colors and intensities. It can cause heating and intelligent data transmission. Two light beams can be mixed out of phase and totally disappear. Ether Energy flow is blocked by the Earth causing greater pressure from above which pushes us downward and we call it gravity. When an object tries to suddenly move it is resisted by Ether Energy and we call it inertia. When an object is moving it keeps moving because of Ether Energy and we call it momentum. A magnet causes the Ether Energy flow to spiral and we call it magnetism. Fire disrupts Ether Energy and we call it radiant heat. Certain conditions cause an imbalance in the flow of Ether Energy and we call it electricity.

Present science fails to see and understand the underlying Ether Energy from which everything is created. By dismissing the old concept of aether our present science has shackled itself to erroneous concepts that lead away from greater understanding. When science eventually embraces Ether Energy (or the same by any other name) then we will see a huge surge of scientific discoveries. Until then I believe we live in a scientific dark age caused by the Michelson-Morley experiment.


July 9, 2006 - (Edited for spelling and grammer February 5, 2007)
James R Randall
aka Jim_Mich

 

[roger]

..deleted..

 

[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.

Ether Energy is not some new kind of energy. It's called by different names by different people. Some call it ZPE, some call it Zero Point Energy, some call it radiant energy, and there are a number of other names. It is the building block energy of the universe. I didn't invent it, I only recognize that it must exist. Do an internet search. There are many scientist researching concepts related to it. The name I choose is irrelevant. The concept is what counts.

I am sorry JM, but you can't have it both ways. If everything you are doing is is described by classical mechanics, the zero point energy is not going to show up. It is a quantum mechanical effect, and has no measurable effect above miscroscopic distances. If you want to make a PM based on zero point energy, my advice is make it small.

IXP