Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Powa]

Ether Energy flow is blocked by the Earth causing greater pressure from above which pushes us downward and we call it gravity.

Is this the same energy that pushes the Moon toward the Earth?

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.

So in the former case the "Ether Energy" resists movement and in the latter it helps the object move?

 

[Jim_Mich]

Powa, yes this is what pushes the moon toward the Earth. Atoms are like three dimentional standing wave patterns in the Ether Energy flow. As such there is no 'standing still' since everything is relative. There is resistance to movement only durring a change of velocity, whether that be positive or negative.


Jim_Mich

 

[jsfisher]

Ok, if this Ether Energy model be valid, Jim_Mich, than what testable prediction can you make for a phenomenon not covered by existing theory? Or, on the other hand, can you formally demonstrate that your model is fundamentally simpler than the existing accepted model(s)? To me, it appears to be an ad hoc hypothesis that conveniently supports wishful thinking.

By the way #1, even with this ad hoc hypothesis, you have still not escaped the Conservation of Energy violation your perpetual motion machine would require.

By the way #2, you have been using the word, energy, rather freely in your posts of late. You should pay more attention to the proper meanings of scientific terms like energy, force, work, power, and such.

 

[Jim_Mich]

the zero point energy ... is a quantum mechanical effect, and has no measurable effect above miscroscopic distances.

Which is why I prefer to use the broader term of Ether Energy! I only brought up the subject of Ether Energy/ZPE because Thebiguy kept trying to force a closed system concept onto Earth gravity. The only way to explain that Earth gravity might not be a closed system is to explain what and why gravity can be an external source of energy.

Jim_Mich

 

[Thabiguy]

All right. After reading your "Ether Energy concept", I get the feeling that discussing the quantum mechanical aspects of zero-point energy with you is not the way to go. What you describe as Ether Energy is fundamentally different from the scientific concept of zero-point energy.

The only purpose of your newly defined Ether Energy seems to be to explain how your PMM can be magically refuelled. (Apparently not because you've seen that happen, but just because you think it would be nice if it did.)

What you still fail to realize is that this magical refuelling would still manifest as violating Newton's law of gravitation and/or the conservation law. It makes no difference if you say "energy is created" or "energy is extracted from an omnipresent system which can do infinite amount of work". It makes no difference is you say "gravity is not as strong upwards as it's downwards" or "omnipresent force is accelerating my weights when they go up".

It doesn't matter how you call it. The basic point remains the same: this alleged inaccuracy of the known physical laws, or manifestation of your Ether Energy, if you will, has not been observed. You are trying to find an explanation for a phenomenon that is entirely in your head and is not present in the real world.

Make an empirical observation that contradicts the known laws (for all practical purposes, "extracting Ether Energy" is equivalent to creating energy, unless you propose a way to distinguish between these two), or use your theory to make a verifiable prediction that differs from what conventional physics predicts. At that point you'll actually be modelling nature and doing science. Until then, you're playing with your own imagination.

 

[Thing]

Jim_Mich, is this you?

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/

If so, then given that you've built a replica of Cook's Electro-Magnetic Battery which generated no electricity at all, but still say "I can NOT make this device work. That does not mean that it never worked" I'm not sure that anyone here can convince you that your gravity wheel can't work. But it can't. E pur si doesn't muove as they say.

By the way, the statement "I will continue to search for information related to devices that suggest overunity" suggests that the author of these pages does believe that perpetual motion is possible, or did when he wrote it.

 

[Jim_Mich]

jsfisher,

Testable prediction?

An object spinning coasting inside a closed container will drop faster than a non-spinning object.

Larger planets and stars might have less gravition than might seem correct. Instead of large planets being 'gas giants' they might consist of more solid material. This would be based on the assumption that a large planet might approach maximum blockage of Ether Energy within the gravity spectrum.

Centripital force increases four times when the speed of the object increases only two times, which by itself is not significant. There seems to be a way to use this to produce a difference of force between two swinging weights on a rotating wheel that is greater than the force required to make them swing. Like a spinning gyroscope that hangs in mid-air, this requires a unique setup situation. Just as the gyroscope obeys Newton's laws, this wheel setup would also obey Newton's laws.

Thing, yes, that is I.

Jim_Mich

 

[Jim_Mich]

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

IPX,
The reason that Lord Kelvin thought that, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" was because he knew it takes energy to fly. He also knew that heavier-than-air flying machines would need to lift both the man and the machine and he knew that men don't have enough strength to lift both. He also knew that adding any type of steam engine or the newly invented internal combustion engine would make the machine even heavier and that the power to weight ratio would still not be enough for men to fly. So the only logical conclusion was that, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

It took the latest most technologically advanced aluminum block engine to be able to produce enough horse power to finally get the Wright Bros. plane into the air so they could refine their control mechanisms. Before this they could only glide into the wind or make very short hops after a catapult type launch using a less powerful engine. Their light weight engine needed aluminum, which needed large quantities of electricity, which needed Edison's or Tesla's electric generators. Many technologies stand on the shoulders of prior technologies.

Jim_Mich

 

[jsfisher]

...So the only logical conclusion was that, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

Again, that was an engineering perspective, not any limitation imposed by science. The Wright brothers challenged no scientific principles at Kitty Hawk, unlike your perpetual motion hypothesis.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher,

Testable prediction?

An object spinning coasting inside a closed container will drop faster than a non-spinning object.

Larger planets and stars might have less gravition than might seem correct. Instead of large planets being 'gas giants' they might consist of more solid material. This would be based on the assumption that a large planet might approach maximum blockage of Ether Energy within the gravity spectrum.

Centripital force increases four times when the speed of the object increases only two times, which by itself is not significant. There seems to be a way to use this to produce a difference of force between two swinging weights on a rotating wheel that is greater than the force required to make them swing. Like a spinning gyroscope that hangs in mid-air, this requires a unique setup situation. Just as the gyroscope obeys Newton's laws, this wheel setup would also obey Newton's laws.

Thing, yes, that is I.

Jim_Mich

Ok, you lost me, here. What, specifically, are you saying is predicted by your Ether Energy hypothesis that isn't covered by conventional scientific wisdom? What experiments can we apply to test your predictions?

 

[Thabiguy]

An object spinning coasting inside a closed container will drop faster than a non-spinning object.

All right, this seems testable. And coincidentally, this test has already occurred as a side effect of the operation of NASA Gravity Probe B, an extremely precise space-based experiment to test the frame-dragging effect predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

The experiment consisted of 4 near-perfect gyroscopes spinning at up to 10,000 RPM while at free fall, 400 statute miles above the surface of the Earth. The experiment ran in drag-free mode, in which the gyroscopes were freely floating inside the container. During the experiment, individual gyroscopes were spinning at different speeds. If any gyroscope was falling towards the Earth faster than the others, they would be accelerating in respect to each other, the drag-free mode would be impossible to achieve and the whole experiment would be ruined. However, no such thing happened. We can conclude that the acceleration in the Earth's gravitational field is not affected by the rate at which the falling object spins.

One miss for you.

Larger planets and stars might have less gravition than might seem correct. Instead of large planets being 'gas giants' they might consist of more solid material. This would be based on the assumption that a large planet might approach maximum blockage of Ether Energy within the gravity spectrum.
(emphasis by Thabiguy)

Do you understand the meaning of the words "testable prediction"?

Centripital force increases four times when the speed of the object increases only two times, which by itself is not significant. There seems to be a way to use this to produce a difference of force between two swinging weights on a rotating wheel that is greater than the force required to make them swing. Like a spinning gyroscope that hangs in mid-air, this requires a unique setup situation. Just as the gyroscope obeys Newton's laws, this wheel setup would also obey Newton's laws.
(emphasis by Thabiguy)

Another fine, testable prediction.

 

[ben m]

Centripital force increases four times when the speed of the object increases only two times, which by itself is not significant. There seems to be a way to use this to produce a difference of force between two swinging weights on a rotating wheel that is greater than the force required to make them swing.

This is one of the things free energy enthusiasts often get wrong: yes, it's easy to make very large forces using very little energy. Take a long prybar and a fulcrum, apply a newton of force to the handle, and you can find a kilonewton of force at the working end. Move the fulcrum closer to the workpiece and you can increase that force as much as you like---the only limit is the strength of the steel and the geometry. Similarly, yes, you can apply small forces to a wheel, gradually make it spin very fast, and find large forces and large force differences.

But force is different than energy. E = f * d, energy equals force times distance. My arm can put one joule of work into the prybar by pushing the handle down 1 meter under a force of 1 newton. The other end will lift up under the resulting 1kN force, but it'll only rise a millimeter---giving an energy gain of 1 joule. One joule out of my arm, one joule into the load. Energy conservation.

You'll find the same thing in your spinning wheel. You'll find lots of huge and imbalanced forces---but how far can those forces push something? When your swinging weight swings under a force, how far does it go? What reaction forces are exerted on, e.g., the spinning flywheel, during that swing, and over what distance are *those* forces exerted? If you're not calculating these quantities, you're getting it all wrong.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Thabiguy,

I've spend about 1/2 an hour searching through NASA news releases and such about the NASA Gravity Probe B. So far I can find nothing that says the 4 gyroscopes are to be spun at different speed during the testing phases. I will continue to search in more detail as my time permits.

As far as the planets go, if the composition of large planets such as Jupiter show up as being less gaseous material and more solid material then their gravitation would suggest, then it might be an indication of the Ether Energy theory. Another ‘testable’ method might be to do a very accurate 'scan' of the gravity of Jupiter by a space probe passing close by the planet. The probe would need to look for specific variations of gravity in a line straight through the center of the planet and compare them with gravity in a line straight through the edges of the planet. Not an easy thing to do! I predict that the data would show irregularities that would be explained by Ether Energy.

The most 'testable' prediction would be my PMM wheel working.



Ben M,

One of the things the skeptics often get wrong is they seem believe that free energy enthusiasts always have a low IQ or are in some way intellectually inferior.

I assure you that when I sit down to write complex computer programs to analyze energy and forces I take all into account. I know what I'm doing. And just to make darn sure I've not made mistakes because of not remembering something correctly I usually go back and double check the formulas against college text books and other reference books.

Jim_Mich

 

[TjW]

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!
<snippage by TjW>
Jim_Mich

No. Energy is power multiplied by time. Power is energy per unit time.
"power per unit time" would then refer to energy per unit time per unit time -- a rate of change of power.

It may be that you know the difference between energy and power. But like the concept of "free energy", the available evidence is against it.

 

[AgingYoung]

Thabiguy,

The confusion arises when you term empirical observation a law of nature. It isn't nature's law; it is opinion based on experience and observation. I think you would agree. When we equate our observations to a law of nature the precise implication is that we have an exact understanding of nature and that law describes it perfectly. I see you know that's not true.

When I said, 'sounds so authoritative’ you can replace that with 'arrogant'.

Gene

eta: I think essentially we agree. The idea of 'past' experience and observation being corrected is essentially the same as saying there is a conflict between what we now think and what we once thought. The past stands corrected.

 

[Jim_Mich]

TjW,

Going back to my original statment,

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.

Thabiguy kept trying to to make me say that my machine would do an infinite amount of work, which would make me sound like an idiot because it could never be true. I was attempting to point out that a gravity and inertia powered perpetual motion machine is NOT an infinite energy machine. Like all engines it has limits as to the amount of work energy it can put out during any given amount of time based upon the size of the machine.

Jim_Mich

 

[Thabiguy]

AgingYoung,
I don't perceive - and this is really only my personal opinion - the term "law of nature" to express how great and awesome we are to have figured it out. To me it emphasizes that it's the nature that makes objects follow these laws, not people; things will keep falling down no matter how much we will wish and beg for it to be otherwise. That's why I see the term as a recognition of our subordination to nature and thus humble, rather than arrogant.

But this is obviously entirely a matter of subjective interpretation. In general, as you say, I think we agree.


Jim_Mich,

So far I can find nothing that says the 4 gyroscopes are to be spun at different speed during the testing phases. I will continue to search in more detail as my time permits.

All right, keep searching. The forum doesn't allow me to post links, but the final spin rates of the gyroscopes (the science phase) ranged from 3700 RPM (gyro #2) to 4900 RPM (gyro #3). During preparation phases, according to status reports, the differences between individual spin rates were more pronounced, apparently over 6000 RPM.

But hey, I have something even better for you than these boring data! How about a simple recipe for a PMM machine? If you can make spinning objects fall faster than non-spinning objects, here's how you can easily build one:

Suspend a gyroscope with mass m on a string (and, I guess, low-friction bearing at the point of contact). It's at rest, to begin with.
1. Pull the string and lift the gyroscope by h meters. To do this, you will spend energy E1 = m*g*h.
2. Spin the gyroscope up, spending energy E2.
3. Release the string and let the gyroscope fall h meters. Now, a non-spinning gyroscope, after falling h meters, would gain velocity sqrt(2*g*h) and kinetic energy m*g*h. However, because your spinning gyroscope falls faster than that, with acceleration g2 > g, it will reach greater velocity and greater kinetic energy E3 = m*g2*h > m*g*h = E1.
4. Catch the spring, stopping the fall of the gyroscope and extracting its kinetic energy E3.
5. Stop the gyroscope, getting back the invested rotational energy E2.

Your pure energy gain (ignoring losses) is E3 - E1 > 0.

Ta-daa! Will you share some of your Nobel Prize with me?

Of course, there's just a little catch: this will only work in dream world where spinning objects fall faster than non-spinning objects.

 

[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.

So are you now saying there is no proof proof that, under Newton's laws or GR, moving weights (I presume you really mean masses) in a gravitational field cannot extract energy?

 

[Cuddles]

TjW,

Going back to my original statment, Thabiguy kept trying to to make me say that my machine would do an infinite amount of work, which would make me sound like an idiot because it could never be true. I was attempting to point out that a gravity and inertia powered perpetual motion machine is NOT an infinite energy machine. Like all engines it has limits as to the amount of work energy it can put out during any given amount of time based upon the size of the machine.

Jim_Mich

All you keep saying (or at least trying to say) is that it produces finite power. That is energy per unit time. This says nothing about the amount of energy it can produce in total. The Sun also produces a limited amount of energy per unit time, but we know that after a certain time it will no longer have any energy left in it and will stop doing anything. What people are pointing out is that unless your machine has some kind of limit that will stop it working, such as using up all the "ether energy" in the universe, there is nothing to stop it producing infinite energy. For the Sun we can say there is x amount of hydrogen, so if this is all fused to iron we will see y amount of energy altogether, and it will be given off with z amount of power over a certain time. For your machine there appears to be no such statement possible, you are simply saying it gives off z amount of power and will continue to do so forever. This is what people are saying is not possible.

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.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on what you are talking about. None of these are the same as each other.

Zero point energy, or vacuum energy, is the energy of spontaneous pair production in any volume of space. It is a quantum effect that occurs because of the energy-time uncertainty principle that allows energy to be created as long as it only exists for a very short time. This has been verified experimentally.

The Casimir effect is related to zero point energy. It is a force that can be generated between two plates due to the existence of zero point energy, but it is not the energy itself. It occurs because it is possible, by shaping and placing the plates correctly, to limit the waves that can be contained between them. This causes less pair prodution between the plates than outside and so there is a pressure differential and hence a force. Unfortunately the effect is measured in electron volts (~10^-19J) on a scale of nanometres and is unlikely to ever be useful.

Tachyon is a generic name for any hypothetical particle that travels faster than light in a vacuum. Many different theories predict these, all with different properties, but none have been detected and it is entirely possible that they do not exist. They are nothing to do with any mysterious energy and if they exist they will simply be one type of the many particles that are always floating around the universe. In any case, since this is a generic name and does not refer to one type of particle it makes no sense to talk about them unless you specify which ones you mean.

Orgone (note spelling) energy is one name for an imaginary energy invented by various people at different times to explain a percieved difference between living and non-living things. What they all failed to understand is that there is no fundamental difference, just different levels of complexity, and so there was nothing to explain. This is in no way related to zero point energy or anything that could ever be relevant to perpetual motion. In any case, this energy does not exist.

Prime background radiation is just another name for the luminiferous aether that was thought might exist around the late 1800s. It was disproved by several experiments, most famously the Michelson-Morley experiments, but these were by no means the only ones. It was always a dodgy concept with much special plaeding needed and was only thought up because of the lack of understanding of light. Quantum mechanics and especially wave-particle duality makes the whole idea completely redundant, since light does not require a medium in which to travel.

As you can see, none of these things are the same as each other, and none of them seem to be at all relevant to your idea of ether or to perpetual motion. The fact that you do not appear to know this is extremely telling.

 

[IXP]

Great post Cuddles!

I was tempted to point out these differences but was too lazy.

IXP