Continuity of Perpetual Motion quacks

[Brian Jackson]

Hi all. I'm a noob here, a 41-year-old engineer and fan of Randi. Just to get this out of the way, I'm building a "PM machine" that is guaranteed to fulfill its purpose: to fail and teach me something about physics. I've built several and have a better, "hands-on" understanding of the universe we occupy. It's fun to take two or more known principals and arrange them in creative ways (mechanical or otherwise) to see the results... sort of like combining chemicals to see which combinations blow up or change color. It's a fun and educational hobby.

While reading much on the PM subject, it seems there are a plethora of quacks and con artists duping the public via promises and/or phony "demos" (ex. Dennis Lee.) The distinction I draw between them is the CON group know they're deluding the public, and the QUACK group delude themselves. The CON group set up "dealerships" for non-existent "motors" to peddle to the anti-establishment crowd, sometimes laced with religions overtones, and usually demonstrated in controlled "sermons." The QUACK group tend to have delusions of grandeur as misunderstood geniuses, presenting their wares donned in the garb of Man's Messiah and solver of world problems.

Neither group delivers the goods, but both groups appear to me to cloak their "wares" in secrecy and paranoia... proclaiming everything from oil company conspiracies to government silencing opps.

So my question for this forum is: Why do both groups of PM advocates feel the need to appear "messianic" (conquering the impossible) rather than follow scientific discourse? Obviously the CON group knows better, but both groups appear to me to intertwine ego into their "devices." Why? Is it because the Quack crowd "needs" to believe they've got something to the point they'll invent conspiracy theories?

Afterthought: The PM subject is entertaining and alluring simply due to its "doing the impossible" quality. It's fun for anyone to daydream about being the first to prove the rest of the world wrong... a "vindication" of sorts in the misunderstood-genius syndrome. I just wonder why there's such an "us against them" agenda involved.

Thanks for reading.

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson

 

[Horatius]

I'm building a "PM machine" that is guaranteed to fulfill its purpose: to fail and teach me something about physics. I've built several and have a better, "hands-on" understanding of the universe we occupy. It's fun to take two or more known principals and arrange them in creative ways (mechanical or otherwise) to see the results... sort of like combining chemicals to see which combinations blow up or change color. It's a fun and educational hobby.

This does sound like fun. Just in case you've missed it, a good site about the physics of PM is at the Museum of Unworkable Devices.

The CON group set up "dealerships" for non-existent "motors" to peddle to the anti-establishment crowd, sometimes laced with religions overtones, and usually demonstrated in controlled "sermons." The QUACK group tend to have delusions of grandeur as misunderstood geniuses, presenting their wares donned in the garb of Man's Messiah and solver of world problems.

...

So my question for this forum is: Why do both groups of PM advocates feel the need to appear "messianic" (conquering the impossible) rather than follow scientific discourse? Obviously the CON group knows better, but both groups appear to me to intertwine ego into their "devices." Why? Is it because the Quack crowd "needs" to believe they've got something to the point they'll invent conspiracy theories?

Well, I think the CON group goes into the messianic mode for the highlighted reason. They target religious folks who they expect will be less knowledgeable about the science, and thus less likely to realize it's a scam. As for the deluded group, well, delusions of grandeur are just a part of the psych issues they have. I really don't think it's any deeper than that. You might ask why they express their problems in this way, rather than the more typical "aliens ate my brains MKULTRA" stuff. That question would be more interesting, I think.

 

[IXP]

I still remember the first PMM I invented. It was soon after I learned about magnets. Why not put a BIG magnet on a stick in front of a car? It would pull the car wherever you wanted to go (this was pre-school). Then after I learned about electric motors and generators in grade-school science, I figured you could just connect the motor to the generator, give either of them them a spin and watch it go faster and faster. Not suprisingly, these two ideas are behind many of the PMMs people are "working on" today.

IXP

 

[ben m]

Regarding the motivations of self-deluding cranks, quacks, and crackpots: I think it's just a consequence of the fact that discovery is fun, exciting, and ego-gratifying. It makes you feel merely smart---you could get that from crosswords or chess---but also important. No one can read a physics book without wondering how exciting it must have been to *be* Einstein, or Mendeleev, or Marie Curie, and to see the universe unfold in front of you. Crackpots want a piece of that feeling. So, for that matter, do professional physicists.

Unfortunately, science is easy to do badly and hard to do well. It takes years of education just to understand what has been done already, and years more to learn how to do anything new---and, on top of that, years of experience to learn how not to fool yourself. The placebo effect? Very real, very tricky, and very convincing to your average homeopath, who waves a crystal near a headache-sufferer and finds him healthy the next day. The fact that burned-out resistors are nonlinear, inductor cores saturate, and voltage often lags or leads current? Those are very real effects which you don't learn in high school, and they create a very easy avenue for convincing yourself, "Wow, this arrangement of magnets and wires is over-unity". The fact that the Twin Paradox is, in fact, paradoxical IF you don't consider simultaneity issues? That alone has tricked dozens or hundreds of people into thinking they'd found a flaw in Einstein. The flaw comes in if you understand the first

Anyway. I think a lot of crackpots are people who make these simple errors, then feel the "natural high" of discovery and self-importance. Once you're on that high---well, sitting back down to *double-blind* your homeopathy tests, or learn the nitty-gritty details of (say) calorimetry to test your PMM, or sitting down and learning relativity correctly---is not merely difficult, it's also a big downer, it's the end of the ego trip. It's much more satisfying to start writing web pages about your discoveries, drafting Nobel Prize speeches in front of your bathroom mirror, and theorizing elaborately about exactly what sort of vibrations you should cure your next patient with. Once you're on that track, on that high, all contrary information goes into the circular file under "cognitive dissonance". Confirmations make you happier and happier, contradictions make you defensive and suspicious. And that's pretty much it---at some point, you've got the ego-lobe of your brain screaming "I'm on track to Einstein-like greatness!", and the rest of the world saying, "Calm down and go away, you've just made a mistake"---and you find yourself smack in the middle of the traditional huge-conspiracy/Galileo-vs-the-church/lone-misunderstood-genius narrative.

 

[Stir]

WOO's = CON's + QUACK's

I think your 'CON' & 'QUACK' sub-categorization is an excellent tool for better understanding WOO's! (Although there will be some who don't fall clearly or entirely into one category or the other). Certainly can be widely applied and is a very important distinction with respect to both motives and ethics.

 

[webfusion]

Pik-a-Chu!

 

[Flange Desire]

Pik-a-Chu!

Bless you!
And all who sail in you!

 

[The Atheist]

Hi all. I'm a noob here, a 41-year-old engineer and fan of Randi. Just to get this out of the way, I'm building a "PM machine" that is guaranteed to fulfill its purpose: to fail and teach me something about physics.

Thanks for reading.

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson

Mate, I could read that kind of stuff all day!

Thanks for coming!

 

[Brian Jackson]

Thanks all for the comments.

The Atheist:
Me too. Seems kind of schizophrenic but I play with mental models of PMMs and "disprove" them as a fun excercise in visualizing energy management. Every once in a while I'm stumped and resort to building the model to see where my reasoning was in error. I always end up learning something that I can apply later, and am left with a greater appreciation and understanding of physics.

I also find it completely entertaining to read the rambling lip-service from those so deluded by their non-existant "creations."

I think it would be a jaw-dropping event to discover some loophole in our understanding of physics to allow such a device. As a kid I fantasized about it, which has led to my fascination with science. Every time a Law is challenged and still stands, the more solidly it is reinforced.

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum!

Regards,
Brian Jackson

 

[AgingYoung]

It's fun to take two or more known principals and arrange them in creative ways...

Do you think it's necessary to really know the principals.

Gene

 

[Brian Jackson]

Do you think it's necessary to really know the principals.

Gene

Hi Gene.
I suppose not... I don't really "know" what gravity is, but I know it's effects. Same for magnets and such as well. But arranging them in creative ways can produce "fun" things like the Chaos Pendulum, etc. And every once in a while I learn something about their properties I didn't know before. That's why I tinker with PMMs... to learn first-hand what makes them not work.

Brian

 

[AgingYoung]

That's why I tinker with PMMs... to learn first-hand what makes them not work.

I have a different motivation for my secretive and paranoid quackery. You might have some good points though. Most likely if you give someone a good idea in any area they'll probably at least give you credit. They'll most likely even compensate you. People have a natural tendancy to be very fair.
Gene

 

[Brian Jackson]

I have a different motivation for my secretive and paranoid quackery. You might have some good points though. Most likely if you give someone a good idea in any area they'll probably at least give you credit. They'll most likely even compensate you. People have a natural tendancy to be very fair.
Gene

I'm not sure how to respond. I have faith in the goodness of most people, but what is your "secretive and paranoid quackery" you refer to? Are you experimenting with PMMs? I don't understand the meaning of your post.

Thanks,
Brian

 

[Rob Lister]

PM is old hat...so 1900's. The new gig for this century is RA (Reactionless Acceleration)

And I have just the machine to do it! It's got gyros and magnets and crystals and superconducting disks and all sorts of crap.

 

[AgingYoung]

Quackery is what quacks do. Its a reference to the title of the topic you started here, Brian. Maybe it was too subtle a reference. There are two different sorts that model perpetual motion machines. The one sort knows they won't work and want to learn why maybe hoping to glean the secrets of the cosmos in the process. They're a very noble sort.

Then there's the luntic fringe that you eloquently described in another thread as secretive and paranoid and in this thread as delusional. You should take better notes.

Lister

....and all sorts of crap.

if it stalls on you try rubbing it with a little eye of newt. You might try waving a dead chicken over it but I've tried that many times in the past without much luck.

Gene

 

[Gr8wight]

Quackery is what quacks do. Its a reference to the title of the topic you started here, Brian. Maybe it was too subtle a reference. There are two different sorts that model perpetual motion machines. The one sort knows they won't work and want to learn why maybe hoping to glean the secrets of the cosmos in the process. They're a very noble sort.

Then there's the luntic fringe that you eloquently described in another thread as secretive and paranoid and in this thread as delusional.

Which sort are you, Gene?

 

[AgingYoung]

I'm the sort that would be in the middle; the sort that Brian excluded a description of. His one description was of himself...

I'm building a "PM machine" that is guaranteed to fulfill its purpose: to fail and teach me something about physics

and his other description of two sorts of quacks....

While reading much on the PM subject, it seems there are a plethora of quacks and con artists duping the public via promises and/or phony "demos" ... The distinction I draw between them is the CON group know they're deluding the public, and the QUACK group delude themselves.

As much as it's nice to have simple explanations that's seldom the case. I'm also the sort that knows you're trying to be cute. Better luck next time.

Gene

 

[Gr8wight]

I'm the sort that would be in the middle; the sort that Brian excluded a description of. His one description was of himself...
and his other description of two sorts of quacks....


As much as it's nice to have simple explanations that's seldom the case. I'm also the sort that knows you're trying to be cute. Better luck next time.

Gene

Actually, I wasn't responding to Brian's descriptions. I was replying to yours. You said:

There are two different sorts that model perpetual motion machines. The one sort knows they won't work and want to learn why maybe hoping to glean the secrets of the cosmos in the process. They're a very noble sort...

...Then there's the luntic fringe that you eloquently described in another thread as secretive and paranoid and in this thread as delusional...

Gene

You're the one that described the dichotomy. You specifically said, "there are two sorts." I simply asked which one of your categories you fell into.

 

[AgingYoung]

I'll clear it up for you, ~grt. You were responding to the false dichotomy that Brian presented that I summarized. The answer is still I'm the excluded middle. I don't fit either absurd over simplification found in either of his broad sweeping generalizations.

Hope that helps yet I know some prefer confusion.

Gene

 

[Brian Jackson]

I'll clear it up for you, grt. You were responding to the false dichotomy that Brian presented that I summarized. The answer is still I'm the excluded middle. I don't fit either absurd over simplification found in either of his broad sweeping generalizations.

Hope that helps yet I know some prefer confusion.

Gene

Sorry, Gene. I meant no offense, and you are right in that I used broad generalizations that were oversimplistic. I was merely trying to understand the rationale in what I perceived to be two groups. Hey, I'm still learning though. So how would you catagorize your position? That's all I was curious about. Thanks.

Brian